To go along with the first initiative, here's one on actually playing the save, maintaining a log of actions. Like the first initiative, the text is from a previous DG (C3DGVII), and is supposed to be clear and easy to read.

MOST RECENT VERSION LOCATED HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5060735&postcount=32)

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

NOTE - This version is outdated

Section 1
The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

-- Ravensfire

A.) I can see people arguing over the what constitutes as "detailed", especially in the last section. So we need to be careful with that wording, and decide if we want to declare some more clean cut minimum guidelines...

B.) for "Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

Before commenting on this I'd like to know where we stand on the continuous play proposal. (That is a proposal to play a small fixed amount of turns on a daily basis.) If we're going to try that then the wording for this proposal would have to be changed significantly.

A.) I can see people arguing over the what constitutes as "detailed", especially in the last section. So we need to be careful with that wording, and decide if we want to declare some more clean cut minimum guidelines...
That's going to have to be somewhat fuzzy - how do you define detailed? I'll go with the obscenity definition - I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.

B.) for "Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.

-- Ravensfire

Before commenting on this I'd like to know where we stand on the continuous play proposal. (That is a proposal to play a small fixed amount of turns on a daily basis.) If we're going to try that then the wording for this proposal would have to be changed significantly.

Yup!

Are you going to push on that idea?

-- Ravensfire

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.

-- Ravensfire

.... that's exactly what I was trying to get at... I wanted to make sure that that was clarified in the text.

Like I was trying to say, the DP being given authority, includes the official not posting instructions but still attending any chat session that might be held.

Sorry for any confusion... :sad:

Sorry for any confusion... :sad:

Bleh - my end. Stupid freakin' cold. My apologies! :blush:

EDIT: And it's a good thing to clarify, I'll change that in a future revision.

Timetable wise - this needs to wait for various issues (see donsig's comment) to be cleared up, plus the Constitution needs to be ratified. An initiative passed before the constitution? :lol:

-- Ravensfire

B.) for "Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.


I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.

I say if the offical hasnt posted instructions. Then The designated player can do as they choose. And then afterwards if something crazy happens someone can do a CC against the offical.

I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.
Post a second initiative overriding this one. That's the nice thing about donsig's system - you can try things, and if it's not working, change it quickly.

-- Ravensfire

I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.

There really was no disagreement between Genral Falcon02 and Ravensfire if you read the later posts. I fully support the clause denying officials the right to give orders during the chat.

There really was no disagreement between Genral Falcon02 and Ravensfire if you read the later posts. I fully support the clause denying officials the right to give orders during the chat.

I know that, just as you know I'm referring to my disagreement.

Maybe y'all will start listening if some order gets us into a dangerous situation and we suffer a major loss in-game because the instruction can't be changed. Perhaps an object lesson can be arranged. :groucho:

I know that, just as you know I'm referring to my disagreement.

Maybe y'all will start listening if some order gets us into a dangerous situation and we suffer a major loss in-game because the instruction can't be changed. Perhaps an object lesson can be arranged. :groucho:


I can grant an allowance for "slight" instruction modifications during a chat, IF AND ONLY IF that official posts detailed isntructions pre-chat to be modified slightly.

But if an official fails to post detailed instructions in time, nothing that official says during the game session is legally binding to the DP.

I've never been in favor of letting a deadbeat official ignore the forum and then just show up at a chat and start pushing the DP around.

What I do want covered is the ability to change things like troop movements if a battle goes better or worse than expected, act on obvious new trade opportunities (we know that we want to acquire Iron Working, meet a new civ on turn 2 who are willing to trade it for something with even beakers), and react to new situations like a new contact asking us to stop trading with an old one.

The traditional reply to what I've just said is let the DP make those decisions, to which I have always responded, two (or more) heads are better than one. Unless we're going to restrict DP duties to Deity level players. :rolleyes:

And I really don't want to stop the play session two turns in just so we can take 3 days to run a poll which is expected to get 100% approval. :wallbash: My opinion is that too many of those situations caused at least some of the decline of DG1. Should we stop play when it's a real question that will get real debate? Absolutely!

Both ends of the spectrum are bad. We don't want to leave an opening where every decision can be made during a chat. But equally so, we don't want to limit it so much that no decision can be made.

What I do want covered is the ability to change things like troop movements if a battle goes better or worse than expected, act on obvious new trade opportunities (we know that we want to acquire Iron Working, meet a new civ on turn 2 who are willing to trade it for something with even beakers), and react to new situations like a new contact asking us to stop trading with an old one.

This is what I have in mind when I said slight modifications...

What I don't want to see is an official to post, say completely reverse their instructions, or to have instructions so vague, but that concider "detailed" that they give the majority of they're instruction in a chat session.

An interesting problem though, is what is "slight" and what is "major"?

Would a major decision at the last minute, "oh there's a stack of doom to our west, should postpone declaring war until we deal with that!!"

The war may still be inpending, but we just want to buy some more time to ensure we're ready for that SoD...

I am against anyone giving instructions to the DP in the chat, NO MATTER WHAT

I am against anyone giving instructions to the DP in the chat, NO MATTER WHAT

Well, if you want "ANYTHING" in a chat to not be legally binding, I'm fairly okay with that.

So long as people in a chat are not "banned" from voicing their opinion and giving the DP advice.

I'd hate to see a DP miss something in the forums which would have otherwise been brought to his attention by a participant in a chat. But for fear of the legal ramifications the person in the chat kept his/her mouth shut.

Similarly for when a DP is unsure or wants advise about details which are left up to him.

These are my main concerns when trying to allow for some instruction.

So long as people in a chat are not "banned" from voicing their opinion and giving the DP advice.

Strongly agree with this. There is no reason, during an on-line chat, for the citizens not to comment on what's going on, and offer advice. Likewise, the DP should feel comfortable seeking advice and suggestions, and then making their decision, even if it's completely opposite of those at the chat. Note, however, there's a difference between advice, and instructions. Instructions come from the instruction thread. Advice comes from citizens.

I do hope that our leader post instructions that do give leeway, and might even ask the DP to "If X happens, adjust routes as deemed best." That's rarely happened, and yet has always been acceptable under ALL DG rules.

EDIT: Added a missing "not" to second sentance.

-- Ravensfire

There is no reason, during an on-line chat, for the citizens to comment on what's going on, and offer advice.

I'm pretty sure you're missing a not in this statement, for it to match up with the rest of the post.

Restated in a more positive voice:

There is no reason, during an on-line chat, to prohibit the citizens from commenting on what's going on, and offering advice.

================================================== ===================
I see all the positions against changing instructions, and really don't understand. If an instruction is wrong for the current state of the game, there is a simple choice to be made. Fix it and move on, or stop the session. Stopping definitely harms the game because it slows the game, and people definitely get bored when we go too slowly, and they definitely leave when they get bored. I have yet to see a single instance, ever, when changing a wrong instruction or even ignoring / disobeying one, did any real damage to the game. At worst, an individual ego might be bruised.

If someone could offer tangible evidence of actual damage, then I'd certainly consider whether that balances the obvioius damage from stopping all the time.

I'm pretty sure you're missing a not in this statement, for it to match up with the rest of the post.

:blush: Yup - correcting it ...

If someone could offer tangible evidence of actual damage, then I'd certainly consider whether that balances the obvioius damage from stopping all the time.
Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

Ultimately, we, the citizens are responsible for the actions of those we elect, even their bad ones. If we don't bother to adequately review what's been posted, we can only blame ourselves.

NO INSTRUCTIONS DURING THE CHAT.

-- Ravensfire

First before anyone gets ticked off, this is a debate not an argument. I abhor extreme positions ("always" and especially "never"), so it is my nature to try to find a convincing counter to any such extreme position.


Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

Ultimately, we, the citizens are responsible for the actions of those we elect, even their bad ones. If we don't bother to adequately review what's been posted, we can only blame ourselves.


We decide to trade a tech for a tech plus 100 gold. The instruction is written that way. At the time the trade is done in-game, the other civ has 150 gold and is willing to give it. How does changing it silence anyone -- the citizens want to do the trade, right? It's better for us to get more money, right? Who does that extra 50 gold hurt?

There are countless other ways that the in-game action might deviate slightly from the literal meaning of the posted instructions, in ways that were impossible to predict. Your choices are:

Stop play to change the instructions DP decides, alone, to improve what needs improving -- thereby risking a CC. We allow the person we elected to make decisions about the area change it (if present).
Play as is, and get a subpar, possibly losing, result.


Option 1 can kill the whole game if done too often.
Option 2 is fine for strong DP's -- I'll vote not guilty and hope a majority follows.
Option 3 is optimal for me. The end result is a psychological negative :cry: for a (very IMO) small minority and a plus for everyone else. The average citizen who isn't hung up about being "silenced" wakes up the next morning and says "wow, we got an extra 50 gold!" [party]
Option 4 is just plain ugly, and the easy way to keep it from happening is to elect DPs who will choose option 2. :mischief:

I've talked only about minor changes. Major changes should be illegal, and I would like to see those present at the chat (if any) be allowed to demand a stop if game conditions depart significantly from what we expected.

Simple counter to your arguement -

Trade instructions: Trade X to Z for best possible deal.

Done. I'll take option 5 - better instructions.

I suspect that nearly every situation you can come up with can be handled by correctly worded instructions. The fault lies with leader posting excessively binding instructions. Again, nothing in the Constitution being ratified or in any previous rule in any previous DG prohibits an official from giving the DP leeway.

The choice about what leeway is given and where belongs with the official, not the DP.

-- Ravensfire

I agree that better instructions are a partial counter. Perfect officials would be nice to have, but we don't really know until after they're elected.

Many people have used the vague instruction method to leave everything up to the DP. Sadly, few citizens have stepped in to do anything about it.

It doesn't address what to do if we don't get better instructions. The point of what I'm asking for is a safety net. I accept the stipulation that we don't want that safety net to be activated all the time, or for it to be used as a crutch. It pains me greatly to have a system which does not account for exceptions.

I'm with Ravensfire, better instructions...

Trade Tech for tech and 100 gold + anything else the AI is willing to offer...

Then you've got the reverse, AI now only has 50 gold.... well... the official messed up... since normally we do trade at start of the session...
The official can also state, accept nothing less then tech A for tech B... allowing for the DP to add onto that anything else that the AI is willing to offer.

EDIT:
As stated previously I'm essentially for 3... but that's under the stipulation that the official does give good instructions and any requests in chat are minimal in their impact, ie. your case would be included in that. So I'll take 5-3 with a willingness to accept just 5...

Once again, where is the accountability for the DP that either botches the save or fails to leave an adequate summary?

I'm fine with the DP being given non binding advice in the chat provided that whatever is posted in the instruction thread is followed, no exceptions. If something is not posted in the instruction thread, the DP may choose what to do, and may listen to the advice of those in the chat, but he/she should be under no obligation to listen. And DaveShack, of your posted options, I would choose Option 4.

Also we should have a set time before a chat that instructions must be posted for them to be binding, posting instructions 20 minutes before the chat gives nobody time to review them. I am not sure on what the time should be, it depends on whether we do a continuous play system or not.

And DaveShack, of your posted options, I would choose Option 4.


Even if it means losing the game? Think settler that can't be guarded because the designated escort won't get there for two turns, or missing out on a critical resource because the X on the map is one square off where it should be. Things that can be fixed, without discussion, by waiting 2 turns or moving the settlement by one square. Things that would get 100% of the vote if we stopped and polled it. The kinds of things that send the SG, GOTM, HOF type players running in horror because we are so obsessive about never deviating from instructions.

IMO option 2 is the best thing to do.
But I know that if I would be DP, I might not have the courage to do so.

IMO option 2 is the best thing to do.
But I know that if I would be DP, I might not have the courage to do so.

Profiles in Courage (http://www.amazon.com/Profiles-Courage-John-F-Kennedy/dp/0060530626/sr=8-2/qid=1170518779/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-6948764-9404142?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Well... sometimes in Politics, you gotta do what you gotta do...

I still agree with Option 5 the most though...

Maybe someone can take on the role of Gnome for our budding civ -- "Enforcer of the good instructions guarantee".


Inspired by the Travelocity commercials.


How close are we to polling this? We now have 55 people in the user group!

Once again, where is the accountability for the DP that either botches the save or fails to leave an adequate summary?
DP Manager (if they want to remove the person out of the pool).
Judiciary.

Honestly, I don't know what else could be done. Any suggestions?

(Version .1 of initiative)
NOTE - this does not account for the continous play proposal, and some changes may be needed if that approach is adopted.

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

Section 1
The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

--------
Change log
v.0
Postedv.1
Clarified officials not posting instructions give all authority to DP under all circumstances.
Added clause about citizen comments and advice-- Ravensfire

DP Manager (if they want to remove the person out of the pool).
Judiciary.

Honestly, I don't know what else could be done. Any suggestions?

I saw your revisions in the other thread, Ravensfire. That's good enough for me. Thanks!

This seems sensible. I approve of it...

Do we have a mechanism for if instructions conflict, though? does that leave it at DP's discretion? Or will there be some sort of pecking order (Earlier instructions are more valid as they have received more review, or President trumps Minister of Domestic affairs, who trumps Minister of roading, who trumps Mayor of Suchandsuchville)

Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

once an official is elected, is the opinion of the majority required, or just that of the officials and DP?

Welcome to the DG, jasonnorthrup, and to CFC!

Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

once an official is elected, is the opinion of the majority required, or just that of the officials and DP?

Was that first paragraph intended to be a quote? Hitting the quote button at the bottom right of the post you're quoting will bring in the previous quote within tags. Then you can delete the parts which are not needed to make your point, and it will come out like this post, with the quote in a box. Not a big deal, just noticed you're new and might not have known how to do it. :D

As for your question, the way we're trying to set it up is a balance between official powers and the ability of mere citizens to stay involved. There have been a few historic incidents where an official or a DP (designated player) has made major decisions without getting proper citizen input. Some people are protective of their rights, while others advocate giving the officials a bit more leeway.

Is this ready for polling?

I won't complain if a poll opens before the Constitution is ratified, as long as it doesn't close before ratification. Anyone who does complain can expect persuasion. :hammer:

Just kidding about the :hammer: part, persuasion will be gentle. ;)

Is this ready for polling?

No - need resolution of how we're playing. Continuous or traditional. This is setup for traditional, but may need to be tweaked for Continuous.

Gotta get those core decisions made before finalizing the related matters.

-- Ravensfire

I'd suggest no decision == status quo ante.

If someone wants to change to continuous, that someone needs to push the idea into an initiative. :)

(Version .2 of initiative)
NOTE - this does not account for the continous play proposal, and some changes may be needed if that approach is adopted.

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

Section 1
The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined.

Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

Citizens may post instructions based on the results of completed initiatives. These instructions must be posted at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

--------
Change log
v.0

Postedv.1

Clarified officials not posting instructions give all authority to DP under all circumstances.
Added clause about citizen comments and advice.v.2

Added clause explicitly permitting citizens to post instructions based on completed initiatives.
Minor reformatting for clarity.

STATUS: Holding
Need for the constitution to be ratified (Feb 08), and for Continuous/Turn based to be resolved. How we're conducting the game sessions probably needs to be in here.

No offense, DS, but we've gotten ourselves in way too much trouble in the past by making assumptions, and going with status quo ante. This time, let's do it right, and get those questions asked and answered at the beginning. And no, I'm not going to ask the question. I've driven enough DG's; others need to stop up and push.

-- Ravensfire

(Version .3 of initiative)

Citizen's Initiative - The Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC

Section 1 - Instructions

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. All sessions, including special sessions, must have an instruction thread.

Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

Citizens may post instructions based on the results of completed initiatives. These instructions must be posted at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session.

If an instruction thread has not been created for a scheduled game session when a citizen is ready to post instructions, that citizen may create a instruction thread for that session.

Section 2 - Playing

The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

--------
Change log
v.0

Postedv.1

Clarified officials not posting instructions give all authority to DP under all circumstances.
Added clause about citizen comments and advice.v.2

Added clause explicitly permitting citizens to post instructions based on completed initiatives.
Minor reformatting for clarity.
v.3 Divided into two sections
Clarified that special sessions do require an instruction thread
Added clause allowing anyone to create an instruction thread for a scheduled session if one isn't there when they are ready to post instructions.
STATUS: Proposed poll
This is the proposed poll for this initiative. 2 day warning notice.

-- Ravensfire

Poll has been posted here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207423)

-- Ravensfire

I didn't see anything about stopping the DP early. As in we are declared on. Shouldn't something be inserted to cover that sort of instance or something similar?

I didn't see anything about stopping the DP early. As in we are declared on. Shouldn't something be inserted to cover that sort of instance or something similar?

That would typically be handled by the instructions, for example "Stop play and save immediately if anyone declares war on us."

:blush: And a typo has been found (and corrected).

Original:
The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session.

Corrected:
The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to halt the session or when the DP decides to end the session.

Sheesh. And I pride myself on my typing skills.

Methos, I think this answers your question.

-- Ravensfire