Aticle K of our constitution reads:

Game actions will be played out during a public turn chat.


I would like to propose that we repeal this article or substitute wording that would make turns chats optional each term upon the discretion of the President.

I am opening this discussion thread in an effort to see if there is enough interest inthe idea to warrant an offical poll on the proposal. I encourage all citizens to post their views on this important issue. :)

I think optional turn chats are a good idea. Presidential candidates could campaign on whether they would hold turn chats or not. They should be bound to holding the chats if they campaign on a pro-chat basis though.

This would open up the field of candidates and allow the citizens to decide on turn chats on a per term basis. In other words, it may let us try a non-chat environment that is not binding. If it doesn't work well, the citizenry simply would not vote for a non-chat candidate again.

It provides another means for the citizens to make a game affecting choice and that's a good thing in my book.

I also like the idea of optional turn chats, as it puts all citizens on equal footing by removing the additional power that citizens who can attend turn chats have. While it requires that we put more trust in our presidents, that is why we elect them. This would also force government leaders to submit their ideas for discussion on the forum, rather than just showing up at the chat with an undiscussed agenda.

We do have procedures in place to removed a president who is not following the decisions of the citizens and departments, so it is not like a president can 'steal' the game.

If nothing else, I would like the whole idea of binding spot votes removed from the constitution. These are clearly undemocratic and are what gives so much power to citizens in certain time zones.

Now what about having a turnchat for the exicitement of it and to help the president decide in a critical situation (popup event as example), but not taking any directives not layed out in the instruction thread?
This would force leaders to post instructions AND give the citizens who want it the excitement of the chat. AND it will make it easier for the president to decide in some cases.

And another thing to think about:
The chat sessions put alot of spirit into this game. Our nation would propably not have managed to stand in this unity if we would not have had that. At least thats my opinion. For many people, it is easier to have an open discussion in chat than posting on a forum, and with the chat people learned to know each other pretty well.
With this, a community evolved out of this rather serious game. A community which will stand together in crisis, but can also have fun together in lazy times.

I support the proposal. Personally I enjoy the turn-chats, but don't think they should be compulsory. It doesn't seem very democratic to effectively exclude citizens in certain time-zones from running for president, or to allow those who can attend the chat to take vital in-game decisions without offering the citizenry as a whole a choice regarding the use of that system.

I personally like the turn-chats. But I can certainly understand making them optional, for all hte reasons donsig and others have given. I would hope that any President would continue the turn-chats, but if they didn't, well, it could lead to some very spirited discussions on these forums! :lol:

In my opinion, this is and always was a bad proposal, as it will tear at the fabric of the Demogame. The turnchats have always proven to be a stable recource for the citizens of the game to get move by move documentation through the discussions in the chat log. Aside from the whining about how some lose control of the game as their particular time schedule does not mesh with or is not catered to by the turn chat scedule, their are no drawbacks to the turnchats. For the people who wish to have the turn chat schedule accomadate their own personal schedule, I would say "run for President", then you can set the schedule days and times according to your desires. I went the first 2 terms attending chats at 4pm with Grey Fox as President. Did you hear me complain?

For the people who want the turnchats eliminated so they can take the gameplay behind closed doors, I would say this is very un-Democratic. The game year will be 4000bc, the CIA hasn't been developed yet. We as citizens will demand to "see" and witness in real-time what goes on in our game. None of this covert stuff should be allowed. Real time discussion and real time chat logs with the sequential posts, just like a normal turn chat, is the only justifiable means of game progression for any President. Any citizen that votes for closed door turn sessions either doesn't understand the basis of the closed door theory (no discussion, rules, standards, or anything pertaining to these sessions has been brought up or finalized), or is just been lead down the rose path by others. This will be a horrendous mistake for the game as a whole if the decision to have turn chats is an option for the President. This is ludicrous, why do you think there is a COC (Chain of Command)? It's because if the President is not able to or doesn't feel like putting forth the effort to attend a turn chat, some other willing citizen is there to play the game. This anti-turn chat movement should be struck down now.

It looks like about 90% of the citizens running for office feel that turn chats should remain as is. This is a very good thing.

In response to Cyc:

While I say that I understand making turn chats optional, I would still expect to see a detailed accounting of what was done on the "closed session' turn. All the things we normally see in the turn-chat logs now, plus maybe some additional explanation of why some things were done when and how they were done.

And Cyc, you had a good point about the Chain of Command.

Cyc: You are far too suspicious, I think. And I disagree that there would be no finalization of decisions without a turn chat. If a decision is not finalized before the turn chat, then it is certainly not finalized during the turn chat because only a small number of citizens are present. If anything, not having a turn chat would force leaders to push for decisions to be made on the forums, where everyone can participate, and there would be no question regarding what actions the president takes.

As for people 'whining' about the turn chats taking power away from them, what makes their view less important than those that can attend?

Sorry, eyrei, I believe you need to re-read my post again. Your questions indicate that you don't understand what I wrote.

The finalized comment was in reference to the rules and standards of the closed door turn sessions. Show me where a detailed discussion has taken place about how one these is supposed to take place?

I never said anyone's views were less important than any one else's. What I saying is why take away the point of view of people who can participate. This is a Democracy not a communist state.

And to your point about the lack of turn chats spurring more debate in the forums, what if there was a lack of debate on any subjects. That would be giving the "cowboy" President free reign to what ever there little heart desires. No, bad idea.

Originally posted by Cyc
Sorry, eyrei, I believe you need to re-read my post again. Your questions indicate that you don't understand what I wrote.

The finalized comment was in reference to the rules and standards of the closed door turn sessions. Show me where a detailed discussion has taken place about how one these is supposed to take place?

I never said anyone's views were less important than any one else's. What I saying is why take away the point of view of people who can participate. This is a Democracy not a communist state.

And to your point about the lack of turn chats spurring more debate in the forums, what if there was a lack of debate on any subjects. That would be giving the "cowboy" President free reign to what ever there little heart desires. No, bad idea.

My apologies. I did misunderstand that one part.

However, I still disagree on your other points. This discussion is not going to make turn chats optional. That would only be done by several votes, including one that includes all citizens, so we are not trying to invalidate those citizens opinions. The goal of this discussion, is, I think, to get this to a vote, so we can see how the majority feels.

As far as 'cowboy' presidents, if the department leaders do their jobs, and we have a reasonable turn schedule, almost all important issues can be polled. If the president makes moves contrary to what the polls tell him/her, an impeachment proceeding can begin. As for pop-ups, and the decisions that must be made before the game can be saved, how many democracies in real life have a citizens vote to determine if intelligence (world maps) should be given away to avoid war, or if any other threat is to be heeded or ignored. This decision is always made by the executive branch and/or the military. These leaders are elected partially for their decision making capabilities. Any other pop-ups, such as trading, making alliances, etc should be done on our turn only, anyway, so these should always be turned down.

Why dont we just improove our instructions and slow down the turn-chats to make less turns if needed? This would have the same effect than the "closed door" and give us the chat-opportunity...

I think i repeat myself.... ?

I'm in favor of turn/chats for what might seem to be an odd reason: the turn/chat logs. When I joined the first demogame in mid-game much of my getting up to speed on the play, interaction, decisions, and issues in the game was through reading the turn/chat logs. I think the chats offer an open-door glimpse to the core mechanics of the game that would otherwise lead to many, many accusations of behind-closed-door dealings.

I think the turn/chats and associated logs add an element that cannot be gained from the forums, and that this element contributes in spirit to the democratic process built into our rules of law and in turn, the overall spirit of the game.

Donsig, why must you always bring this up?

Closed sessions prevent citizen discussion and input on the game. The lack of an immeadiate council vote when a quick change is needed will slow things down considerable when a council vote is needed to override things. It cuts down on the person-to-person communication withing the demogame, and has to be on of the best parts of it. It is also an excellent way to keep a good eye on the President.

Originally posted by Octavian X
Donsig, why must you always bring this up?

Closed sessions prevent citizen discussion and input on the game. The lack of an immeadiate council vote when a quick change is needed will slow things down considerable when a council vote is needed to override things. It cuts down on the person-to-person communication withing the demogame, and has to be on of the best parts of it. It is also an excellent way to keep a good eye on the President.

Citizens should be giving input on the forums, not during the turn chat. The CIV2 game has always worked like this, why can't this one do the same?

@eyrei - 'cause we don't want everyone bailing out of this game like they did on the Civ2 game.

Originally posted by Cyc
@eyrei - 'cause we don't want everyone bailing out of this game like they did on the Civ2 game.

I suppose that might be part of the reason. I bet it had more to do with people getting bored with Civ2, however. While we can avidly debate strategies, they all pretty much know what is best for a win. I think the forum debates would become even more interesting if they were where all decisions were made.

I know I have swayed a bit to and fro on this topic. I have been even on the extreme edges. Just to update everyone, I prefer keeping them mandatory. There have been some great points raised and some fair ones on either side. Unfortunately, I feel the support for the optional turn chats is based a lot on speculation. Not that it could not be based on some sort of speculation, since we've not played another way before.

I feel the Turn Chats have had an undeserving bad rep attached to them since we started. I don't feel the Turn Chats should be blamed for leaders not posting enough discussion on their topics. They are independent entities. I think the "magic cure" for forum participation lies not in abandoning the TCs but by bugging leaders to open communication channels and initiate some votes. Imagine that the TCs are disbanded and the leaders still do not post enough discussion. Shall I prove my point then? Or is this as speculative as the "magic cure"?

As for pop-ups, and the decisions that must be made before the game can be saved, how many democracies in real life have a citizens vote to determine if intelligence (world maps) should be given away to avoid war, or if any other threat is to be heeded or ignored. This decision is always made by the executive branch and/or the military. These leaders are elected partially for their decision making capabilities.
This is one area in RL I hope we do not simulate. I don't elect leaders for their decision making capabilities. I elect them to lead the start of conversations on topic. I don't want the game to consist of only the people in government.

As an example, I bring up the famous technology trade. As disastrous as it came, it was by having the open Turn Chat that we even paused to look at Trade possibilities. If it were not for the TC, the trade might have simply been overlooked and the opportunity missed forever. While no Trade Department can anticipate the possible gains for discovering a tech, would the President have stopped? Who knows?

I especially like the points raised about chat logs being the open door to the citizens of the record of our game. Here we get a true sense of what exactly happened, without any spins or fancy writeups. A very real and accurate account of the game's progress. I also like the points about the "open doors" and the "community". I think we are well off to open people to the progress of the nation and I agree that meeting people during chat enhances the community spirit of the game. I still remember the first chat I attended, when normal citizens were not given voice. I was so dismayed that some people were given special priveliges in the game while others were not.

In closing, I think the Turn Chats are of great value to the citizens who attend and to those who do not. I don't feel getting rid of them will magically transform the game into a forum frenzy. Do I wish that the forums were busier with more game debate? Yes. However, I think getting rid of the TC's will make the game even tougher to follow and are not the cause of many of the problems suggested.

Originally posted by Octavian X
Donsig, why must you always bring this up?


As one of the few who have been a DP I have seen turn chats from both sides. I know firsthand that the arguments for keeping the turn chats are not valid. I keep bringing it up in the hope that those of you who have never been DP will take my advice or at least let the proposal be voted on.

I may reply to some specific posts later but I'll try to touch upon some here as well.

First of all we should discuss whether the turn chats make the demo game more democratic or less so. It can be looked at in this way: without turn chats all decisions are made in the forums or by the DP. The forums are (cross your fingers) open all the time so as long as we leave enough lead time for planning all citizens have an equal opportunity to have their voice heard.
That leaves the issue of the DP being able to run amuck since no one is watching him or her. I would venture to say that the DP can get away with alot whether there is a turn chat or not. There really is no way, short of posting a new save every time an action is taken, to completely take out the DP's influence on the game. Take a look at the victory turn chat from the first game. I decided to move troops into Babylon in response to their movement into our territory. I didn't ask permission I just did it. Then those at the chat ratified my call to ask Hammurabi to remove his troops and the war was on. It was almost identicle to the way US presidents bypass Congress to get us involved in wars. The turn chat didn't hamper me in any way.

Something we should be doing, whether we re-affirm the commitment to turn chats or make them optional, is to do more long range general planning. We need to give the DP general guidelines about how he or she should react in given situations. Should we always try to see if techs can fetch a good price, should we ever buy and sell maps, etc. The more guidance we give the DP the more accountable the DP becomes to us, turn chats or not.

I do not think removing the turn chats will rip the fabric of the game. At least it doesn't have to. Abolishing turn chats for a term may bring back some folks we lost along time ago. More importantly it may force us as a group to become better planners. By proposing that the turn chats be made optional I am not proposing that citizens stop getting together in the demo game chat room. The chat room is a great way to facilitate planning. There's nothing wrong with having council or senate meetings on a regularly scheduled basis. There's nothing wrong with calling special meetings in the chat room. There's nothing wrong with citizens getting together on the spur of the moment to discuss things in the chat room. All these can and should be done whether we have turn chats or not.

In the beginning of the game there is a tendency for turns to be played out rapidly and hence to play more turns per chat. In the end the turns become so long that playing ten turns becomes a marathon turn chat. By not have rigid turn chats we can alleviate these problems.

I just want to mention the CoC. That was implemented when we found that the President could not always make the turns chats, especially since the president was bending over backwards to make the chats convenient for Americans. Beginning in term three the CoC was involved much less often. I imagine that if the President is allowed to schedule turn chats at his or her convenience then the CoC will be used even less.

Originally posted by donsig


As one of the few who have been a DP I have seen turn chats from both sides. I know firsthand that the arguments for keeping the turn chats are not valid. I keep bringing it up in the hope that those of you who have never been DP will take my advice or at least let the proposal be voted on.



We will be voting on this. If noone else does, I will open the poll as soon as the elections are decided.

donsig, I agree with and understand every point you make.

But I still think the TCs add to the game experience for every citizen with the possible exception of the DP. And when it comes down to it, making things easier for the DP is a much lower priority for me personally than increasing the potential for an engaging and equitable game experience for the rest of the citizenry.

I think much of the problems with the TCs had been resolved prior to my joining Game 1. My perception of them has never been as anything but good for the game.

Many turn chat problems have been rectified though others remain. The number of game turns played per turn chat is one. I think the demo game would be more enjoyable for more of us if the DP weren't under the turn chat schedule pressure. Given the fixed real time terms there is a tendency cram as many game turns in as possible before one's term expires. (At least I felt that pressure. :D)

I understand that the turn chats add more to the game for many people. What some people want to continue to ignore is the fact that turn chats take much away from the game for others. Optional turn chats does not give either group the upper hand it merely puts both groups on an equal footing. And it broadens our presidential candidate base as well. So how is the proposal a bad one?

For those who do not want to have optional private chats:
I sense a danger in assuming the people will always have an option to vote for a President who will conduct Turn Chats. In the past we have faced many elections that were uncontested. It is possible that citizens will not have a choice but to accept a President who would conduct turns in private. We also have had many occasions that a leader has not been able to fulfill their mandate. If the VP is willing to do private chats, it is a possibility to occur that term.

Again with the chat logs: I feel they are so important as a record of what occured. Without them, we rely heavily on the President's communications and writing skills to recount what happened. While some players here may be so very talented in this respect, I'd rather be voting on my President to play a great game of Civ. I'd venture to say we might lose some worthy Presidential candidates based on their communications abilities. Not saying I am worthy, but I would never run because I have little passion for detailed and entertaining writeups nor do I have a flair for the dramatic or graphical screenshot skills. Especially knowing when my account is the only account.

As someone who has had the opportunity to be the DP, I found it a great experience to share the progress of the nation immediately. When something great happened, I was so excited for us and was able to instantly share the experience with the citizens in chat.

I still do not understand what it takes away from anyone.

Donsig, I very much agree with you that we should get rid of the pressure to achieve any number of turns during a chat. Furthermore, I see no problem in having a vote on this. Let the people decide what they want.

Just my two cents here (Two realy new Shiny American pennies :D)
I would rather have a Public Chat than a Private Chat. Since In my opinion a Private chat would possibly take away the Democracy fell to the game and more twards a Totalitarian System :(. This is a Game of Democracy, we need Public Chats :)

Edit: Thanks for Cyc for clearing that up about the Private Chats(Optional public chats) and the current public chats :)

Why dont we just put a poll up for the average and the max of the number of turn chats the citizens would like?

The average would be the desired number, to which the actual number of played turns could be lower or higher.

The max would be an absolute max, to which a higher number of turns played is not allowed.

CivGeneral: I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Right now a public chat is mandatory. donsig's proposal would be to change that so they are optional. No one has proposed they be eliminated.

disorganizer: I'm not sure I get what you're saying. When I was referring to the # of turns that be played, I was not concerned about the maximum, but the minimum. I was concerned about the pressure some DP's feel sometimes to have to get to 10 turns, even if it takes hours. I thought that was what donsig was referring to and agreed with him. This hurry hurry feeling is bad for the game, as some decisions are made in haste and some things can get overlooked. It also is unfair to tie down the DP to the hotseat for hours to finish things. I also think that there is no hurry or need to do so many turns in a day/week/term/whatever. Maximum is good. Minimum is bad. All IMHO. Am I off track to what you were talking about? I was just trying to piece together the conversation to the point where you replied and I got lost. :confused:

i was talking about not making the chats optional, but slowing the turnrate down ;-) or more letting the citizens poll about the turnrates (and with that defining an absolute-max turncount in addition to the average turncount we have in our heads now).

I strongly agree that there should not be a mandatory goal for the number of turns per chat. We did remove the "10 turns per chat" stipulation from the rules but it seemed to have a life of its own and continued to be a semi-mandatory goal throughout demogame #1. Hopefully we can break that cycle with this game.

i agree. thats why we should put up a absolute max BELOW the 10 turns ;-) just to set a sign. we may anyways change this later.

would it be good to start with a max-rate of 5 for example?

well, we can put this value up for vote with every election ;-)
max and average would be good. i would at the moment prefer a max of 8 and and average of 4 btw.

I prefer a real time limit. However many turns can be played in 2 hours (or whatever is decided upon). In the early years there will be more turns, in the later years there will be less. The DP should have the authority to stop the chat whenever they want. If we do have offline turns we would need a fixed limit as a person playing alone can play far faster than during a chat session.

How about:

"The chat or playout excluding the pre-turn phase must not extend 2 hours real time nor 10 turns.
An average number of 5 turns per playout is desirable."

Or maybe let all 3 numbers be decided by citizenry?

@CivGeneral - By saying "Optional Public Chats" you are saying "closed door" Private chats. We have open "public Chats" now. By making them "optional" we would make it so the DP could play the game whenever without hold a chat or keeping a log or posting a screenshot. All that is required for an "Optional Turn Chat" ruling is that (so far) if your running platform states you will support open turn chats, you must always have them. If you are the DP in an "Optional Turn Chat" term, you can play the game whenever and are only required to post a report of what you think happened. I believe what you are trying to say is that you want open turn chats, just as they are.

@Dis and Shaitan - I believe we should just impose a 10 turn MAX in the turn chats and the DP can play any amount of turns they feel comfortable with as long as it's not over ten. If they want to play four, they can. If they want to play 8, they can. No pressure, just a MAX of ten turn per chat. I also believe a real time limit is a bad idea, as some DP's, I'm sure would try to play as many turns as possible in a rushed fashion. This would definately not be a good thing.

Originaly posted by Cyc
@CivGeneral - By saying "Optional Public Chats" you are saying "closed door" Private chats. We have open "public Chats" now. By making them "optional" we would make it so the DP could play the game whenever without hold a chat or keeping a log or posting a screenshot. All that is required for an "Optional Turn Chat" ruling is that (so far) if your running platform states you will support open turn chats, you must always have them. If you are the DP in an "Optional Turn Chat" term, you can play the game whenever and are only required to post a report of what you think happened. I believe what you are trying to say is that you want open turn chats, just as they are.

I meant the Public Chats that we have :o. Looks like I am going to edit that post i have made. Thanks for clearing that up for me Cyc. I would rather have a Public Chat.
(My shoe taste funny now :crazyeye: *Remarking about the Foot-in-the-mouth*)

*Goes and corrects his earlyer post*

My pleasure, CivGeneral.

I'd be happy with a turn max as Cyc suggests. We must also stress that hitting that max isn't the goal for the DP. Especially on Emperor level, attention to every concievable detail should be the primary goal.