Please vote appropriately for the following options (one option for each question - unless it's one of the "if you voted...X", and you didn't vote X.).

Should we have deputies?
Yes
No

If you voted yes, how do we determine them?
Runner-up in Election
Appointed by Official-Elect

Who plays the save?
President (Chain of Command as backup)
Designated Player Pool (not necessarily elected officials)
Chain of Command (only elected officials, in a set order)
Other (please explain)

What officials should we have?
President, Domestic, Trade & Foreign, Military, Technology, Religion & Civic
President, Exploration & Settlement, Foreign Affairs & Trade, Science & Infrastructure, Culture & Religion, Military
President, Domestic, Military, Infrastructural
Other (please explain)

How should the Judiciary be organized?
1 Chief Justice
3 Justices (Chief Justice, Public Defender, Judge Advocate)
Other (please explain)

Should a Governor be in charge of all cities in our civilization?
Yes
No

If not, how many cities per Governor?
5 Cities Maximum (see DaveShack's proposal here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4792183&postcount=18))
An individual number for each Governor (voted upon by the citizens)
Other (please explain)

For the second Officials option, I had to abbreviate a lot of it because poll options cannot be more than 100 characters. For the full official titles, see the post.

I set a time limit of 7 days, which I think is reasonable enough. It's multiple choice, public poll.

You know - separate polls would have been a bit more clear ... They would also allow for concise discussions, focused on each topic.

Explanation of Other choice in playing the save ...

DP Pool, using same policies as previous DG's. It's proven to work. CoC is used for backup if DP doesn't show on time.

-- Ravensfire

Turnchats - DP plays with CoC as a backup. I also liked it when the DP had to give a schedule of play, and it was strictly followed.

Judiciary - 3 people.

Governors - Give them a certain area. I remember Civ3 was roughly 150 tiles, give or take. Civ4 would have fewer tiles, of course. So, doing it by number of cities wouldn't be as good.

Advisors - (a little different than what the poll shows) Domestic, Finance & Trade, Foriegn Affairs, Science, Military, Culture & Civics (Civic Affairs?)...

Sure some might not do much, but again, that's good for someone who's new to the game and/or doesn't want to be burdened with a lot of stuff to think about.

Roleplay - Atleast for roleplay (and perhaps "unofficial offices")...

Domestic - Office of Labor (oversees city tiles), Office of Infrastructure (oversees infrastructure and resources).

Military - Office of Army/Navy/Airforce

and so on.

Governors - Give them a certain area. I remember Civ3 was roughly 150 tiles, give or take. Civ4 would have fewer tiles, of course. So, doing it by number of cities wouldn't be as good.

Also liked how we could plan ahead. Gonna be settling a new city... who's it go to? this governor or that governor, well, here's the provincial borders....

You know - separate polls would have been a bit more clear ... They would also allow for concise discussions, focused on each topic.

Explanation of Other choice in playing the save ...

DP Pool, using same policies as previous DG's. It's proven to work. CoC is used for backup if DP doesn't show on time.

-- Ravensfire
Seperate polls would also be more confusing when referring to different options. Having to post in 5+ threads just to discuss some things that are all related? An honestly, if you want to discuss it more in-depth, that's why we still have the discussion thread. ;) This is more just so people can see who-voted-for-what in one location.

BTW, you voted "Governor controls all cities" and then "5 cities maximum". You realize that "Governor controls all cities" means that you can't have a maximum number he controls. :crazyeye:

Also, if you wanted to use the DP Pool, why didn't you just vote for "Designated Player Pool plays the save"?

Turnchats - DP plays with CoC as a backup. I also liked it when the DP had to give a schedule of play, and it was strictly followed.
By DP, you mean the President, not the DP pool, correct?

Judiciary - 3 people.

Governors - Give them a certain area. I remember Civ3 was roughly 150 tiles, give or take. Civ4 would have fewer tiles, of course. So, doing it by number of cities wouldn't be as good.

Advisors - (a little different than what the poll shows) Domestic, Finance & Trade, Foriegn Affairs, Science, Military, Culture & Civics (Civic Affairs?)...

Sure some might not do much, but again, that's good for someone who's new to the game and/or doesn't want to be burdened with a lot of stuff to think about.

Roleplay - Atleast for roleplay (and perhaps "unofficial offices")...

Domestic - Office of Labor (oversees city tiles), Office of Infrastructure (oversees infrastructure and resources).

Military - Office of Army/Navy/Airforce

and so on.

Seperate polls would also be more confusing when referring to different options. Having to post in 5+ threads just to discuss some things that are all related? An honestly, if you want to discuss it more in-depth, that's why we still have the discussion thread. ;) This is more just so people can see who-voted-for-what in one location.

BTW, you voted "Governor controls all cities" and then "5 cities maximum". You realize that "Governor controls all cities" means that you can't have a maximum number he controls. :crazyeye:

Also, if you wanted to use the DP Pool, why didn't you just vote for "Designated Player Pool plays the save"?


By DP, you mean the President, not the DP pool, correct?

"Designated Player", which would start off with the president.

Oldschool term. :old:

Leave the cities in the care of the Domestic Minister! So very often, we've had a preponderance of elections for provinces we just can't find people to play for. On top of that, we need good coordination, assigning cities for production, science, GPP, etc. Domestic should be able to appoint advisers to assist him with the cities if necessary.

BTW, you voted "Governor controls all cities" and then "5 cities maximum". You realize that "Governor controls all cities" means that you can't have a maximum number he controls. :crazyeye:
Of course - I got a completely different read on those options that you did. Sorry - live with my votes.

Also, if you wanted to use the DP Pool, why didn't you just vote for "Designated Player Pool plays the save"?I explained my option in my post. Not sure why there's a question here ... :crazyeye:

-- Ravensfire

Leave the cities in the care of the Domestic Minister! So very often, we've had a preponderance of elections for provinces we just can't find people to play for. On top of that, we need good coordination, assigning cities for production, science, GPP, etc. Domestic should be able to appoint advisers to assist him with the cities if necessary.

We can do that if there's not enough governors.

So, it's...

Provinces - Priority to the governor.
If there is no governor, the Domestic Advisor takes over until a governor can be appointed.

Just like old times. :p

Of course - I got a completely different read on those options that you did. Sorry - live with my votes.

I explained my option in my post. Not sure why there's a question here ... :crazyeye:

-- Ravensfire
Alright, no problem. I take it that you prefer the 5 city proposal of DaveShack...
We can do that if there's not enough governors.

So, it's...

Provinces - Priority to the governor.
If there is no governor, the Domestic Advisor takes over until a governor can be appointed.

Just like old times. :p
Yeah, that works for me. We should probably also have the Domestic Advisor in charge of determining provinces' sizes (if we go with the "Individual Number per Governor" option)...

Works for me, too. Maybe we should have a set size for provinces -- obviously a bit lower than it was in Civ3 given the nature of city placement and the fact that maps tend to be a bit smaller. (Maps equivalent to large/huge would ruin some people's PCs)

Well, there are a lot of very inconclusive results so far. Several "undervotes" where the options making up a set have some people not voting for anything within that set. :crazyeye:

I voted other for executive offices, so here is my idea:

We have four main leaders:
1. President
2. Foreign Minister
3. Domestic Minister
4. Military Minister

Then it would be possible to create new positions that are under one of the above ministers, in one of the following ways:
1. A minister gives an official decree
2. 60% of the people vote for it

For example:
The domestic minister could decide to create a minster incharge of workers and infrasture
This minister would then have complete control of the area given to him/her by the minister

A sub minister can be fired in the same way as he/she is elected, minister decree or 60% vote...

If this was the case, we wouldn't need governors, but I still voted for a governor system since I don't think anyone will like this idea

I have to go with the traditonal method. As for Deputies, I voted yes and should be choesn based on who gets second place in the polls (provided that it is a contested elections). Uncontested officals can pick their deputies.

Governors - Give them a certain area.
The only other option I voted.

I have to go with the traditonal method. As for Deputies, I voted yes and should be choesn based on who gets second place in the polls (provided that it is a contested elections). Uncontested officals can pick their deputies.
That would create problems. One set of officials can pick who they want, yet another set is bound by whomever loses?

As for me, I'll only offer a deputy position to someone who runs against me in the election. If you don't want the position enough to at least try to win the top spot, then you don't deserve a position at all.

As for me, I'll only offer a deputy position to someone who runs against me in the election. If you don't want the position enough to at least try to win the top spot, then you don't deserve a position at all.
And thats your personal policy, why force it on everyone else?

If I have two people running against me, I rather take the one who shares my personal views on the position, not necessarily the one who stole more votes from me.

If we have deputies be the runner-up, we would have to take away the office holder's right to fire his deputy, which removes control of his office from him.

What about getting rid of officail deputies and just mentioning that office holders may appoint deputies if they so choose. The Domestic Advisor can be in charge of all cities and appoints whomever and however many governors he wants. The same can be said of the Forign Minister, etc.

If we have deputies be the runner-up, we would have to take away the office holder's right to fire his deputy, which removes control of his office from him.

Not necessarily. The two actions, becoming a deputy and removing a deputy, wouldn't need to be linked in the law. Having an official be able to fire a deputy is pretty rare in the DG, in fact I'm not sure if we've ever done it.

What about getting rid of officail deputies and just mentioning that office holders may appoint deputies if they so choose. The Domestic Advisor can be in charge of all cities and appoints whomever and however many governors he wants. The same can be said of the Forign Minister, etc.

I don't think many would agree with the domestic advisor appointing governors. The option of having no deputies was offered as part of this poll, and it has been rejected by a large margin.

We need to do a much better job this time around of assigning duties of vacant positions to other offices.

Not necessarily. The two actions, becoming a deputy and removing a deputy, wouldn't need to be linked in the law. Having an official be able to fire a deputy is pretty rare in the DG, in fact I'm not sure if we've ever done it.

If we allow a Leader to fire his deputy, then if he doesn't like his runner up, he'll just fire him and get one he wants... thus negating the point of the runner up.

If we allow a Leader to fire his deputy, then if he doesn't like his runner up, he'll just fire him and get one he wants... thus negating the point of the runner up.

What about letting the president do that? I remember we did that a few times - or, even letting the people impeach the deputy (of course, that often takes a week, and is almost pointless if the term's about to end).

Why so much emphasis on leaders who don't like their deputies? We would never have issues like that, would we? :mischief:

The whole point of using runners-up would be to give people a reason to run against the high-powered vet. Even if they lose, they get a role in the government. No matter how small that role is, it provides some compensation for the anticipated beating from entering the election to begin with.

DS I can agree with that, but the ability to "Fire" the deputies would then have to be outside the Leader's direct control, as CT said, either have the Pres. or the People "approve" such a request. Which I would be fine with.

I think forcing a deputy upon an official undermines the official and may make the job less appealing. You run a good point of encouraging running for office. Im kind of torn on this issue.

Not necessarily. The two actions, becoming a deputy and removing a deputy, wouldn't need to be linked in the law. Having an official be able to fire a deputy is pretty rare in the DG, in fact I'm not sure if we've ever done it.

The two actions would not have to be linked by law but if the law says the runner up is the deputy then I'd say a darn good reason would be needed to remove the deputy. By letting the official hire and fire the deputy at will we have a better chance of getting a deputy who would run the department as the official would - which seems more in line with giving the people what they voted for. Having the runner up serve as deputy can lead to citizens of opposite views within one department which can lead to problems. (See term two of Civ III DG1.)

I voted other for which offices to have. It seems to me we need a President, Domestic, Military and Foreign departments. I don't see the point of seperate trade, science or culture departments. These could be sub-departments within the major departments and could be filled via appointments.

I also misunderstood the governor question (I think) and voted in both categories even though I voted yes instead of no.

Just want to note the huge turn around in the Judiciary polling. Looks like we will have three justices after all.

The whole point of using runners-up would be to give people a reason to run against the high-powered vet. Even if they lose, they get a role in the government. No matter how small that role is, it provides some compensation for the anticipated beating from entering the election to begin with.

If we let elected officials pick their own deputies they can still pick from those who lost an election so I'm not buying into your argument. If someone doesn't have the guts to run and get beat they don't deserve a job anyway.

And if we gave citizens some rights then even non-elected officials could contribute to the game. :rolleyes:

And if we gave citizens some rights then even non-elected officials could contribute to the game. :rolleyes:

What's your idea to help citizens contribute more to the game? Right now I can't really think of anything other then general forum discussions, forum polls (both we've always done), and the DP pool (relatively new concept to me, but done last DG).

What's your idea to help citizens contribute more to the game? Right now I can't really think of anything other then general forum discussions, forum polls (both we've always done), and the DP pool (relatively new concept to me, but done last DG).

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.

How about this one:

Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

Try this one on for size:

Do away with the one month terms and base terms on game turns. Play the game at a steady pace no matter what happens in the game.

These aren't new ideas. They've been suggested time and time again. The only new suggesiton I have is to actually try some of these once, just once and see what happens.

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.

I personally view the Turnchats as a RIGHT of the citizens, I know you disagree with me on that, but it's an avenue of participation for Citizens. It allowed me to go from random citizen to military leader. It is a check on the DP the citizens have. I likely would not have participated in the Demogame beyond the first term of Civ 3 DG1 if it weren't for the turnchats. As such I will try my best to ensure they stay a part of the demogame.

On the issue of last minute major orders, I agree, turnchats should not be used as replacement for instruction threads, if something can be anticipated instructions should be given in the forums.


Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

I can agree with this one.



Do away with the one month terms and base terms on game turns. Play the game at a steady pace no matter what happens in the game.

How does this increase the rights of citizens? How does this increase their ability to participate, especially with the participate? Terms can get dragged on with turned based terms. The "steady pace no matter what happens" (assumable to combat my previous point) I fear would take rights from the citizens as major events could occur in game and the DP would be able to continue on without taking it to the forums to get citizen feedback.

Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.
I disagree on this one because of this past demogame. I feel the official should not be bound to initiatives. If he opts to he can, he can even post his own initiative polls, yet I think that there is no real need for an official if binding polls dictate everything. What makes this any different than a Succession Game? The official, in my view, should hold discussion and post informational polls and then make a decision based on his views and he may and should take into account the citizens views, although he does not necessarily have to follow the informational polls.

Example being a binding poll which votes 6-5 in favor of something. It's a close vote and he is still strongly opposed to the decision, even after discussion and the poll. He should still be able to go with the 5 vote instead of the 6 vote.

If leaders make irrational decisions, then impeach.

The heart of the demogame has always been "the will of the people"

Officials are there to plan out and carry out orders in accordance to the "will of the people."

If the people choose as a whole to make a decision that causes us to lose, then it's the official's duty to carry out those orders even if they know it's gonna end in a loss. A decision like that can only be overturned by another more recent poll. Even if an official disagrees they should be bound to forum polls.

In this democracy the citizens are like a Senate/House/Parliament, as such their polls should be legally binding.

The heart of the demogame has always been "the will of the people"

In this democracy the citizens are like a Senate/House, as such their polls should be legally binding.

I whole heartly agree to this and your statemnt. The power lies within the people, not one leader.

Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.


Not exactly... only the polls which violated the standards, as written, got shot down, and then not all of them. :p

Anyone should be able to post a binding poll. I took my first major stand on this issue back in DG3 and have maintained that position.

All binding polls should meet certain required minimum quality standards. Those standards should be set by the people, and polls which fall short should not be binding. The standards we have historically agreed on are:

Polls about an individual or affecting strictly an individual as a personal matter must be private. These polls include elections, recall, confirmation, guilt/innocense, and sentencing.
Polls must be stated in a fair manner, as impartially as possible given the circumstances.
All relevant options must be included. the poll that I demanded as a citizen back in DG3 was an issue because the decision by the official left off a key option. The 1st poll options were something like "research toward democracy" vs "research toward military tradition" with toward democracy winning, but the official then used that result to say the citizens had decided "research directly toward democracy". I polled getting economics first to enable us to get Smith's, which was then voted down "because my poll was offensive to the official". We ended up wasting a prebuild that game because we went to democracy first.
An ordinary poll cannot change the law. The process specified in the law, normally an amendment process, is the only way to change the law.
An official may not use a poll to get permission to break the law. If the official insists on breaking the law, then just do it and let the citizens decide on guilt and possibly sentencing.


The private vs public question, which Donsig is referring to obliquely, has been decided in different ways in different demogames. Most of the time, the rule has been (paraphrased) "all polls which are not required to be private must be public". This demogame, what the people wanted is clear if you take the trouble to read the discussion on the subject, and that was "all binding polls not required to be private must be public." The law was poorly written so it didn't say exactly that, but the will of the people on the matter (at the beginning of the game) was known.

This game we can, and possibly will, make a different collective decision on public polling. But binding polls still should be required to follow polling standards. Sure, that means restrictions, but the restrictions are intended to make the poll fair for everyone, not to limit the ability to post a binding poll -- everyone should have that right.

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.


Sorry, this position is based on a fallacy, that existence of a chat causes last minute orders. The facts show otherwise.

The existence or absence of an actual chat does not affect "last minute and mostly unseen orders". Pick any random instruction thread in any of the last 3 or 4 games, and you will see as many as 90% of all the officials posting no instructions for their area, or instructions which are so vague as to be meaningless. This holds whether there was a chat scheduled or not, and whether the chat was attended or not.

The only definitive cure for this disease is to take an office and be one of the officials who posts instructions ahead of time. If you can't do that, then you have little credibility to complain about it. Don't get me wrong, you certainly do have a right to complain, but such a complaint from someone who is effectively inactive anyway carries no more weight than a whisper in a stiff breeze.

Now I'll take a turn on the soapbox. How an official communicates instructions is unimportant compared to what those instructions are! Why is this the case? Because if the people have said what they want, in a discussion or poll, then the official must follow what they people say. The people decide "settle on spot A" -- does it really matter if the domestic advisor writes "settle on spot A" in the forum or if that is said in some other way? No, as long as the instruction matches what the people want, there is no difference between the communication methods.

If the people do not say what they want, then they get what they deserve. If there is no input on settlement and the official says to settle on spot B, the people are at fault for failing to make their preference for spot A known. How the official communicates "spot B" does not affect the amount of input given by the people because there was already an opportunity to give input and it was not taken.

The third case is one where there is no opportunity to give input, for example an in-game question which must be answered before the game can proceed. If the question has been anticipated then the people have had their opportunity to give input, and the preceeding paragraphs hold. If the in-game question has not been anticipated then it is impossible to give premeditated input. In an offline environment, one person (the DP) must decide, solo. In a chat environment, we have a choice to make in the law -- either one person decides solo, or many people contribute to that decision.

If the people choose as a whole to make a decision that causes us to lose, then it's the official's duty to carry out those orders even if they know it's gonna end in a loss.

Almost right -- I'd probably resign and let the fool who put the losing option forward be the one who gets the "fun" of seeing the resulting defeat.

Sorry, this position is based on a fallacy, that existence of a chat causes last minute orders. The facts show otherwise.


My position is not based on a fallacy. Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. Nice and simple, no arguing about what a word means.

I don't care if 90% (or 99%) of the posted orders are vague (or if an official fails to post orders). We have a DP to there to make any needed decisions. Could it be that the existence of the turn chat contributes to the vague and non-existent orders? Or could it be that our level of elected officials is lowered by the fact that turn chats turn some people away from the game?

My time is more limited than it used to be (since I'm working a full time and a part time job and going to school part time). Just because I don't have time to be an official should not mean my right to speak out on game issues (both Civ III and DG) should be curtailed. DaveShack, if you really want increased participation here then you should be doing what you can to include as many people as possible - people like me (and I think yourself as well) who have limited time and people who live in different time zones than the normal EST time slot for turn chats. There should be room in the DG for those who want to participate alot and those who want to participate a little. By simply removing the turn chats and ensuring that all participation is through the forums you will open things up for many who do not join in due to the turn chats.

And, yes General Falcon, there are those who have been driven from the game by those turn chats. I understand some are drawn to them but not all and they do have there detrimental effects. Why won't you all try just ONE game without them?

If you must keep the turn chats then make them just social events where the DP explains what is going on but doesn't take advice from anyone. This can be done by muting all attendees so that no advice can be given.

@ice2k4: I see you still don't get it. Giving citizens the right to trump officials is not the same as castrating officials nor does it mean everything must be polled. It simply means citizens can ensure an official acts a specific way on a specific issue no matter what the preferences of the official is.

I agree that any binding poll must be fair. I'm not so sure it is possible to create standards that are usable, especially if the silly notion that a poll can be informational only is continually bandied about.

@General Falcon02: By playing at a steady pace I meant two or three turns everyday no matter what.

As for the public versus private poll issue I'd like to remind everyone that we played quite a few demogames before there was such a thing as a public poll. I realize private polls have their drawbacks but so do public polls. This last DG was the first one played where we had a user's group that prevented a person from using multiple logins to sway a vote. That was actually instituted after the game started and so there was no discussion about the pros and cons of the two voting systems with the user group in place, making any pre-game discussion about them out of date. Also, the rules of that game were not so clear cut since I recall valid arguements in favor of the legality of private initiative polls.

As for polls not being able to change the laws I'm not so sure about this. It can certainly be argued that judicial reviews can and do change the law. While I prefer amendment procedures I see nothing wrong with a citzen's initiative poll being used to over-ride a judicial review's interpretation of the law. I guess in the end I agree that polls should not change laws but I think they should be allowed to interpret laws and any such interpretation poll should should trump judicial reviews. It's a touchy area since it is always possible for a citizen's interpretation poll to be blatantly out of whack with existing law - which means interpretation polls would have to be reviewed by the judiciary in a manner similar to that of proposed laws.

EDIT: The third case is one where there is no opportunity to give input, for example an in-game question which must be answered before the game can proceed. If the question has been anticipated then the people have had their opportunity to give input, and the preceeding paragraphs hold. If the in-game question has not been anticipated then it is impossible to give premeditated input. In an offline environment, one person (the DP) must decide, solo. In a chat environment, we have a choice to make in the law -- either one person decides solo, or many people contribute to that decision.

But how many things are truly surprises and how many were obviously coming but missed by an inattentive citizenry (which, BTW, includes all elected officials)? Think back to DGIII term three when I refused Monty's demands to remove our troops from within the borders of his new city. I saw that coming and alluded to it before the game play session but nothing came of it. Remember that officials can give conditional and standing (and even conditional standing) orders. I see no reason for leaving open the option of last minute advice or orders during the game play session.

Also, once that option is opened then we must face the question of who gives the orders or advice. Is it right in a demogame to exclude the voices of mere citizens during the chat? IShouldn't citizens have the same rights in the chat that they enjoy in the forums? If not then we've created a scenario whereby officials can bypass citizens rights! The more one thinks about turn chats (objectively) the more one sees how badly they affect the demogame.

My position is not based on a fallacy. Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. Nice and simple, no arguing about what a word means.


You are asserting
No turn chats -> (implies) no last minute orders.

This is equivalent to
Having last minute orders -> there was a turn chat (the contrapositive)

I will assert
There has existed a session which had last minute orders
That session did not have a turn chat
Therefore there is a contradiction to the contrapositive, that having a last minute order implied there was a turn chat. The contrapositive is shown to be false.

Therefore the original assertion, that not having turn chats implies (a.k.a. causes) not having last minute orders, is also false.

Now, a statement which is known to be false is a fallacy.

Please move beyond the turn chat as the source of all evil and join with me in working against the true cause of our problems, which is a general degredation of demogame fun. I will theorize (meaning it is not proven) that one contributing factor to the decline of demogame fun is advocacy of extreme positions.

Edit: corrected the "therefore" clause to insert not on both sides. :crazyeye:

I stand corrected. I should not have said Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. I should have said:

Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no orders which are not posted in the forum before a game play session starts period.

We all know that last minute orders are not a problem (at least compared to orders posted after the game play session starts) as long as 1) they are posted by the appropriate official before the game play session starts and 2) in all other respects they are legal orders. We also all know the trouble with turn chats is they take away from the decision making abilities (or contributions) of citizens who do not (or cannot) attend said turn chats.

Please move beyond the turn chat as the source of all evil and join with me in working against the true cause of our problems, which is a general degredation of demogame fun. I will theorize (meaning it is not proven) that one contributing factor to the decline of demogame fun is advocacy of extreme positions.

I will if you will. Are you willing to accept a ruleset that allows private polls and offline game play sessions (as well as public polls and turn chats)? I see nothing wrong with my advocation of extreme positions especially when it comes to protecting my right to participate in the demogame in a fun and meaningful way.

If you really want to counteract the decline of demogame fun then do something to ensure people can participate fully in the decision making process. The best way I see of doing that is to return to the original idea of the demogame as a forum based game. (Which I don't really see as an extreme position.) Another way is to ensure citizens (as a group) have the final say in game play desicions. (Again, something I don't see as an extreme position.)

If you insist on calling my positions extreme then so be it. But please acknowledge that fact that I am quite willing to leave the door open so to speak. The best ruleset we ever had was the one for Civ III DGIII. No CoL, just a constitution that was intentionally vague so as to allow citizens to choose how they wanted things. It did not make turn chats mandatory nor did it ban off line game play sessions. What's wrong with that sort of open ended ruleset? It lets the citizens decide (by their votes) if they want a DP who will play online or off and actually allows both to happen during the course of the same game.

We could do the same thing with public and private polls. BTW, why is it I'm called on the carpet for my extreme views (getting rid of turn chats or allowing private polls) when those who want to ban offline game play sessions or ban private polls are not seen as holding extreme positions?

We also all know the trouble with turn chats is they take away from the decision making abilities (or contributions) of citizens who do not (or cannot) attend said turn chats.

But it's not true that turn chats take away from the contributions of people who aren't at the chat. Everyone has the right, and IMO the obligation, to make their views known before the play session starts. That input must be considered, and takes precedence, over what happens during the chat. You often speak about being able to predict what will happen and plan accordingly. Take one of your hot button issues, trades conducted during a chat. All you have to do to prevent ad-hoc decision making on trades is to use your voice before the session to demand a play stoppage if any opportunities come up, and poll it if you must to make it stick. You might be stopping the game for a no-brainer decision, but you've always had this right.


I will if you will. Are you willing to accept a ruleset that allows private polls and offline game play sessions (as well as public polls and turn chats)?


Umm, the current ruleset allows private polls and offline sessions. The new ruleset will follow the needs of the majority.


If you really want to counteract the decline of demogame fun then do something to ensure people can participate fully in the decision making process. The best way I see of doing that is to return to the original idea of the demogame as a forum based game. (Which I don't really see as an extreme position.) Another way is to ensure citizens (as a group) have the final say in game play desicions. (Again, something I don't see as an extreme position.)


But it is a forum based game. All decisions made in the forum must be followed. The citizens do have the final say in game play decisions. It has never been otherwise. :confused:

Some examples of extreme positions as I see it:

Allowing any official to make any decision during a chat
Never allowing any official, or the citizens, to make any decision during a chat
Allowing officials to make decisions without citizen input
Forcing officials to poll every decision, no matter how small


#1 can result in missing out on some great debates, the stuff that good demogames are made of. I've never advocated unlimited decisions during the chat.

#2 can result in a series of very short sessions, with almost nothing to discuss or poll between them. I've seen this happen, and it was very painful. We'd play one turn, meet someone new, and have to stop because there was a trade available that 99% of solo players would make, but with no ability to amend instructions for obvious events, a stoppage is required. Then the people look at it and say "why are we even discussing this, just play on!"

#3 is how we usually ran the governor positions, in the early DG's. We have had a couple of power happy folks who tried to run their executive branch offices this way -- they usually don't last.

#4 lost us a lot of really good leadership, as people who wanted their office to mean something realized they were no more than "glorified polling secretaries" We had trouble this game, with a certain veteran player (not you in this case) slapping around a newcomer Secretary of War and requiring that every detail of a war plan should be polled.

What should we do? Don't take either extreme #1 or #2 -- allow play to continue for obvious gotta-do type decisions, and don't put 100% of the burden on the DP -- those extra eyes and opinions really mean a lot for DP's like me who are good enough players to follow instructions but not good enough to win GOTMs. Also allow some input for the true bolt-out-of-the-blue popup questions. Don't take extreme #3 or #4, find a balance between officials having to poll everytime they want to pass gas, and the ones who think of their offices as inviolate.


If you insist on calling my positions extreme then so be it.


Just the ones which feature "never" or "always". :) And the ones which require long 4 or more day durations. Remember, many of our citizens lose interest if nothing happens for more than a day or two. :lol:

First, just incase there's any confusion, I do not advocate the "banning" of offline sessions. I see valid reasons for offline sessions, my concern is the "banning" of online sessions.

I have yet to be convinced that there are good enough reasons for "banning" online sessions.

Yes, online sessions are not flawless, but neither are offline sessions. The problems with online sessions can be solved with regulation.

Problems with Offline Sessions

1.) Decisions made in Turnchat, circumventing the forums.

In the end this should in practice only be the DP seeking advice of those in attendance. Nothing in the turnchat should be legally binding, unless it is something that's already been established in the forums. The DP has the right to ignore or follow any advice he recieves from a chat.

I would like to put forward, what is the issue with a DP looking for some additional input before taking an action. Any undefined decisions are still up to the DP. And what is the difference between a DP going to a Demogame chatroom for opinions or asking a RL friend in an offline session? The only difference I really see, is that those in the Demogame chatroom have a greater familiarity with the game. As such they can point out a decision in the forums the DP might have missed which addresses the very problem the DP is asking about.

2.) Laziness in Posting Instructions / In-chat Instructions

Enact and enforce requirements on posting instructions. In fact, how about this if an official is unable to post instructions in time they aren't allowed voice privilages in any turnchat. One time violations should not result in punishment (if the official is otherwise AWOL aswell) since sometimes RL gets in the way of people. However, someone who makes a habit of it, or proves they are available to post, but doesn't post instructions themselves or make arrangements should be punished.

Now on "quality" of the instruction post is harder to enforce, it's hard to determine if a person just missed something or being lazy and vague (with or without intent to give instructions in a chat session). You shouldn't really punish someone for a "failure of imagination" but should be punished for laziness. This would be helped by offline sessions (since instructions will be given later).

Of course even so...
I don't care if 90% (or 99%) of the posted orders are vague (or if an official fails to post orders). We have a DP to there to make any needed decisions.

General Arguments against Turnchats

1.) Removing turnchats "adds" to Citizen's rights and participation.

I don't see how eliminating turnchats "adds" anything. The forum stays the same, forum polls are still the same. So long as nothing in turnchats are concidered legally binding and instructions are posted properly no rights are violated. Turnchats are to allow for additional citizen participation, a log of events, the ability to point out forum decisions to the DP they might have missed. All these ADD to the rights of citizens, particularly those in the forums by adding an additional check on the DP.

If the turnchat rules I've mentioned before are used those who can attend should not have additional "power" over the game. All the power still resides with the DP who has been entrusted with the save and the forums, which the DP must base his/her actions on. No different from with offline sessions, except the DP has the ability to get some realtime feedback.

Why won't I give Offline sessions a chance?
I am giving offline sessions a chance, I think offline sessions are not by themselves a bad thing. But I think online sessions should be maintained given their benefits and opertunities for participation.

On the subject of "steady pace"...
Are your proposing daily game sessions? If so how does this increase forum rights as not everyone has time to review the decisions. I think we should stick with 1-2 play sessions a week, of approx. 10-20 turns.

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us? Or that we rush decisions in the forums so that people in the forums who can not check EVERY day will not be able to voice their opinion on an issue?

I might be able to accept "X turns per week" as a general rule with exceptions, but "no matter what" seems a bit harsh, and could help to reduce citizens rights rather then preserve them... That at the very least is my fear.

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us?

Ironically, there was a historic incident where someone wanted to make a point of "no decisions / advice during chat". That DP continued a chat the full 10 turns despite having a "predictable" war declared against us, and while the military and foreign affairs advisors were there in the chat demanding he stop.

To be fair on the subject, I should also mention that another veteran DP caused a much more recent incident by proceeding with trades which were different than the people had approved. That player did two more things wrong, by also playing the game with different file versions which changed how it behaved and by failing to stop when things didn't match up.

History and irony aside, here's what I think the "regular play session" idea means. Instead of planning for 10 turns in advance and playing, planning for 10 and playing, which makes it harder to predict what will happen out at the end of those turns, use a smaller interval. Plan for 6 turns play the 1st 2-3. Update the plan out to a 6 turn window, play another 2-3 -- or even the simpler plan for 3 and play, repeat until done.

The advantage of this suggestion is that people would be forced to get off the fence and decide what they want, and do that continuously. This is a proposal from someone who plans to be here somewhat intermittently to begin with, which in itself is quite remarkable since you would normally expect such a person to want all decisions delayed until he has a chance to see them.

This proposal does address one of the reasons that people leave. I need to come back and explain that in a bit, gotta take one of the kids to the doctor.

Hmm, why are we having a discussion here anyway? :crazyeye:

I think I'll go make a new thread. :cool:

Which can now be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=197770).

On the subject of "steady pace"...
Are your proposing daily game sessions? If so how does this increase forum rights as not everyone has time to review the decisions. I think we should stick with 1-2 play sessions a week, of approx. 10-20 turns.

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us? Or that we rush decisions in the forums so that people in the forums who can not check EVERY day will not be able to voice their opinion on an issue?

I might be able to accept "X turns per week" as a general rule with exceptions, but "no matter what" seems a bit harsh, and could help to reduce citizens rights rather then preserve them... That at the very least is my fear.

I'm proposing we play two turns per day. That's 14 turns per week and about 60 turns per term (depending on the number of days per month). This is not much different than X turns per weeks.

Yes, no matter what means do not stop even if war is declared on us. Two turns will not destroy our chances of winning a game. Think of the possibilites. By having a steady pace we'd have to revise our way of posting game play instructions and we have to devise new (and hopefully better) ways of letting the DP know what to do. Since the pace is steady we'd be dealing with more standing and conditional orders to be sure but we'd just have to find a way to streamline and simplify them. That in itself may focus our planning energies where most needed.

We already have the concept of a pool of DPs so playing two turns a day should be doable since the workload can be split up. Having to play only two turns may encourage more people to become DPs. Chats could still be held and they'd be reasonable in length since only two turns were being played.

No I doubt anyone could attend every chat or post orders everyday. This is no reason to toss this idea out. Think of the possibilites. What if we elected leaders and then let them assemble their own team that would be responsible for posting gameplay instructions for their department? Not only would this allow elected official to lead their own team (and the general population) it would allow for more citizens to enter government service without having to get elected. I'm sure some people entering this way would soon decide to run for bigger office. Think of the possibilites.

As for banning either offline or online sessions, let's not ban either and allow the DP to choose. If the people do not want a DP who will conduct offline sessions then they should not vote for him or her. Let the people decide with their votes during the game and not close these doors with the ruleset.

Ironically, there was a historic incident where someone wanted to make a point of "no decisions / advice during chat". That DP continued a chat the full 10 turns despite having a "predictable" war declared against us, and while the military and foreign affairs advisors were there in the chat demanding he stop.

If you are referring to the Great Aztec War of DG III then you are mistaken in the motives behind that historic incident. The president at the time thought a war with the Aztecs would not only be beneficial but in keeping with the WotP. As for the demands to stop, another historic event, the Medicineman Incident (DG I) established that the (then) statutory ten turn game play session could only be terminated by the DP's disctretion. I think the game play schedule I proposed above would not only alleviate these kinds of incidences it would help keep interest in the game high since something new happens everyday, while at the same time too much can't happen to cause serious problems.

Think of the possibilites.

Honestly Donsig..... I've got my concerns... but I think I'd be willing to give it a try...

My biggest concern is allowing time for polls, at the same time, 2 turns is hardly a lot of turns, so theoretically MOST polls could span gaming sessions. I also agree this wouldn't be practical without the DP pool, and would likely require a Leader + 1 or 2 deputies per department.

I still am also concerned about the start of a major war, particularly when we suddenly have troops bearing down on us that we did not see before causing an immediate threat to our territory. And while this can be taken care of by a competent DP, it feels like the type of decision that would best be served in the forums.

Another major concern is it turning into a SG with "official" advisers. It has the potential to switch power from the forums to the DP to a large degree, particularly with the lack of time allowed for discussing decisions in the forums.

But in general, it's an interesting idea, and I'm not opposed to trying it.

That's an idea that I think is worth a try...
It is also more realistic, if you are ruling a real civilization you can't call timeout if suddenly troops are converging around your borders to ask the legislature what to do

One idea this brings up (in my head) is slightly changing the role of initiaitves...
They should be lasting decisions, like once one is enacted it is in effect until repealed. Like an example would be: "There can be no more than 3 units per city unless the nation is in a state of war"... These wouldn't be stored in the Constitution of Code of Laws, but we could have a thread of current initiatives

Let's continue the discussion on the continuous play option in the thread created for that purpose (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=197770).