There is an ongoing discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1097621#post1097621) about legal instructions and spot votes. There appear to be significant ideological differences between the proponents of the various ideas.

I'd like to know what people in general think.

spot votes? where are the spot-votes in the constitution?
;-)

we should use this poll to define what we want in the NEW laws, as we do not have anything defined in the constitution about spot votes...

EDIT:
and another addition...
if we vote "no spot-votes", the the DP alone can and must decide ANY popup events which are not defined in the instrucions (and as they are popups, most of the wont be) without spot-votes as he cant save the game ;-)

I beleve that Spot Votes are part of the Legal instructions.

Discussion from over a year ago on this subject (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24962) ;)

@Duke of Marlbrough - Dang, that is an old thread O_O. I did not know that this happened a year ago.

Sheesh! This poll has only been up 8 hours and already has 17 votes. I think I'll start writing informational Science polls. :lol:

@ Duke - Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Your post kinda shows me that all the work the authors of the Three Books did was well worth it. It's also a shame that we lost great people like Rain.

well, maybe its time for a "what would be needed to get you back to the demogame" thread again ;-)

Originally posted by donsig
Removing the turn chats would also alter the criteria used for judging presidential candidates. If the President plays alone, even using instructions, alot then depends on the President's Civ 3 playing abilities. Using the turn chats, then the ability to lead both the Civ 3 game and the demo game in the direction the citizens want is important. The President's Civ 3 playing abilities are negated by the turn chat, for better or for worse. It matters not which since this is supposed to be a group effort.

I guess I'm agreeing with those who say the turn chats should stay.

As for spot votes, first of all I grossly mis-understood the new rules governing them. I also did not understand that I could unilateraly end a turn chat session if I felt the need arose due to events in the game. Had I been on the ball the current controversy would not have arisen. You can rest assured that the use of spot votes will be more carefully handled during the rest of my term.

A quote from our president a year ago. Take a hard read over it ;)

It is funny how DoM's old thread was about ending spot votes in the chat yet most of the discussion in the thread was about whether the chat itself should stay or go.

I think we all now realize that Shaitan's words back then were very wise: our demogame needs chats. But like DoM's old thread, this post is not about ending chats, it is about ending spot votes in the chats.

My words which Civanator has quoted still ring true. Spot votes negate the playing ability of the DP for better or for worse. And this is a group effort. However, we can best proceed as a complete group if we allow the DP to make decision with the advice of those present at the chat rather than by compelling him or her to follow the whims of those at the chat at any given time.

Take heed of DoM's post in that old thread where he tells us that we've lost many citizens because of the power exercised by those at the chats...

Hmm, after reading this. I wish to change my vote and opinion to "Spot Votes only for unforseen situations and cannot override previous instructions".

@donsig: btw, we also lost many people in our history because they thought the DP had too much power :-P
and that citizens had no or only a bit influence on how the game is played. that was the reason why those forcing laws were introduced ;-) look at i thim term2 of DG1 (or was it t3?) where many people complained that GF did not follow their "wishes"... so those laws defining the TCI and spot-votes etc. were braught inside the demogame to enforce that the people are heard.
if you look at the first ruleset of the DG (the one EVERY citizen complained about because it did not enforce anything on the president and lead to a possible one-man-show) it was not including turnchats at all ;-)

dis, it doesn't matter whether we have turn chats or not. If the people don't discuss things then how can the will of the people be known?

This poll is about whether to allow those who can attend the chats more power than those who cannot attend the chats.

@donsig: no. this poll is about whether to allow SOME people to take a decission rather than ONE SINGLE person.

if something is discussed and polled in the forum, the decission taken there is followed.

if something IS NOT discussed and polled, then who is deciding it? thats what the poll is about.
without a spot-vote for it, the DP alone decides that. with a spot-vote, the DP can share the decission with at least the few people in the chat.
this means that a SPOT votes, though only allowing the participants a vote, will be more democratic than a despotic decission of the DP alone (note that i as a non-participant in the chats sais that).
the spot-votes do NOT FORCE the DP to use them instead of stopping the chat. they just prevent him from taking his personal choices rather than to ask at least a few persons.
so if the DP thinks that a decission is to be taken at the forum, then he can do this at any time(!).

Why is it that the person who was elected by the citizens as a whole to play the game is all of a sudden a despot when he makes a decision while playing the game? I am sick and tired of this debate. All this is because I decided not to remove our troops from the Aztec's territory which gave us a war. There was a thread posted prior to that turn chat where my intent to go to war was posted and the posts in that thread backed war, though it was not unanimous. If I had called a spot vote at the chat the war would have been voted down. Why should those at the chat be able to over-ride what was already posted in the forums? Remember, those at the chat had as much opportunity as the others to post their anti-war opinions in the forum! Add to this the fact that those at the chat opposing the war did so mainly because they thought the war would be a disaster and that we would not be able to continue building (both incorrect assumptions as it turned out) and it is seen that my decision was neither against the will of the people nor despotic.

If something is not discussed and polled then it is (and always has been) up to the designated player to make any needed decisions. This whole fight did not start over something that was unexpected and not discussed in the forums. The fight started because some of those who are used to only expressing their opinions during the chat felt as though they were not being heard because I did not call a spot vote. To them I say, "Well, if you want to be heard then use your voice in the forum!"

If I had called a spot vote at the chat the war would have been voted down. Why should those at the chat be able to over-ride what was already posted in the forums? Remember, those at the chat had as much opportunity as the others to post their anti-war opinions in the forum! Add to this the fact that those at the chat opposing the war did so mainly because they thought the war would be a disaster and that we would not be able to continue building (both incorrect assumptions as it turned out) and it is seen that my decision was neither against the will of the people nor despotic.Then perhaps it would've been better to have stopped the chat until we had a legal and valid poll, hmm? Until there was a legal poll on the issue, we have no idea which idea would've won over. And it's *way* too easy to justify actions in hindsight, so don't even pull that tack Donsig.

And I believe the problem wasn't that the chatter's voice couldn't be heard without a spot vote. The fight started because, in this instance, their voice hadn't been heard in the forums either! No forum vote, no spot vote, merely a divided discussion thread. When did anyone have a chance to make an official discussion on the matter?

Now, if the DP is worried about a problem, he should either poll a representative sampling of the people to come to a conclusion, (a spot vote) or take it to the forums. Being elected president doesn't give a person a mandate to do whatever the heck he or she wants in the game. They *still* have to follow the will of the people. Forum participation is best, and spot votes aren't the greatest solution, but I'll take a spot vote over a *single person* deciding the fate of our country simply on his or her whims. It's that old playground standby, 'majority rules.'

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Then perhaps it would've been better to have stopped the chat until we had a legal and valid poll, hmm? Until there was a legal poll on the issue, we have no idea which idea would've won over. And it's *way* too easy to justify actions in hindsight, so don't even pull that tack Donsig.



IIRC, we were told to remove troops or declare war. The game cannot be saved at this point to take it to a forum discussion.

As for this issue of which is more democratic, I am going to say this one last time. There is absolutely no way that it can be shown that the sample of the population present at a turn chat is representative of the political views of the entire populace. The President, on the other hand, did at least have the support of a majority of citizens during the elections. Neither is perfect, but I am not willing to hand over control of this game to those who can attend turn chats, mainly because I do not believe them to be a representative group. If anything, they form a *gasp* political party with very similar views on most issues and a penchant for backscratching.

I will put this very simply for those who wish to become department heads. If you do not post clear instructions that deal with a variety of situations based on a forum discussion and possibly even a poll, I am going to make sure you are removed from office. Stop blaming the DP for trying to actually keep the game going, and reexamine your own level of involvement.

Oh, and one last thing. FA leader is not an easy job. If you aren't willing to put forth a great deal of time and effort planning for contingencies, don't run for it. That is not a shot at our current FA leader (well, not any more than it is at every one that has served in that position this game), because I don't even know who it is off-hand. If you want something to work with, go look at Chiefpaco's or my own classification methods from previous demogames. We dealt with how threats should be handled coming from every other civ, who to threaten and when, and made sure we did not ever end up with wars on multiple fronts. I have seen little of this forward thinking from our FA department so far this game. Alright...rant over.

Eyrei, if you were the FA leader, and you had no expectations whatsoever of war, would you make any instructions about signing or not signing a military alliance with Greece against the Aztecs? Those are decisions that can be made only on the spot, and there should be spot votes or on the spot leader instructions made when these situations arise. If we were told to leave or declare war, there should have been a spot vote to determine that. Granted, it's not the majority of the citizenry, but 13 (or whatever the number was at the chat) is a greater number than 1 when making decisions. Even if donsig unilaterally declared war, it would not be such a serious offense, but he kept playing for 7 further turns and ignoring spot instructions, which should also be made official.

Personally, I don't what the spot instructions to be made official.

I do not participate in the chats. Period. I do participate in the forums. I read the discussions, look through the save and vote in polls. I don't actively particpate in many discussions.

I think that ought to be enough for the majority of citizens.

Here's what I DON'T see enough off in this game.
1. Informational polls. Where are the polls to determine the general mood of the citizens? THAT'S how a leader can give instructions on possible scenarios. Or, and I would be happy with this, provide guidance to the DP during the chat using information from the forums.

2. Structured discussions. Very few people start discussions, and guide them to a conclusions. We don't even have a good, solid CoS and PI procedure nailed down yet.

3. Original thought. I see way too much of "It's always been done this way!" or "But this is how DG1 did it". I don't really care if it was or wasn't. An arguement based soley on a past game doesn't hold much weight with me. Tell me WHY it would work, or would be better.

There's a lot of bitterness right now, and too many people are holding grudges. The past is done.

I've seen several discussions about moving forward, but they're often large steps. Example is the CoS. I think a more productive discussion could have been held by creating a thread for each section and focusing attention on each small part. The same for the PI process.

New ideas have been started, just not finished in a timely manner. The elected officials need to step up and finish these discussions.

-- Ravensfire

I'd have to say that donsig is correct in his summation of the situation. I would also have to agree with eyrei's opinion. We do need to move this game back into the forums. President donsig's main goal in this Term has been to do just that. As a major t/c supporter, maybe the most dedicated in DG history, I feel that the lack of meaningful discussion in the forums has driven this game into an afternoon tea party for those of us that are lucky enough to attend the chats. Just because there is a certain "political party", as eyrei says, that have become accustomed to getting their immediate wishes performed through instant spot polls, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. This isn't Burger King or McDonald's. Some of the more important issues can't be decided on a moments notice using month old assumptions.

Boots, you posted right after eyrei, yet all the questions you asked were answered in eyrei's post. Look at chiefpaco's Term as F/A Leader. He was pretty buddy-buddy with CT, that should qualify him. :D You will find fore-thought and originality in his threads. He saw a problem and went after it until he felt he had solved it. He didn't shine in the glory of his title and wish there was some way he could help the DG. eyrei also had excellent directives in his Term as F/A Leader. His intuition and gameplay strategies got us out of several tight spots. He lead and we followed, and it worked.

I wish I could play the game as Ravensfire does, but I can't. I feel I have to stay invovled because if I didn't the game would wander off and get lost. I just throw up my hands when I read most of what does or does not get posted in the forums. Take Science for instance. You people decided that going for Democracy would be our best bet. But because you decided not to vote in the poll, we are now going to head for Astronomy. Smooth move. Hey, I don't mind going for Astronomy, but I wouldn't have minded going for Music Theory either. I too, would like to get to Democracy quickly. But enough about my Department. That was just an example.

I can't believe I've spent so much time posting this reply. Sorry I rambled on so much.

Originally posted by eyrei
IIRC, we were told to remove troops or declare war. The game cannot be saved at this point to take it to a forum discussion.

You are completely correct in this. However, the message that I was getting from donsig during the chat was that they founded the city, then we had a turn BEFORE we were asked to leave, during which donsig asked for the chat room opinion, which was, understandably, confused. It was at this point that people first began asking to stop the chat. And of course, we all know what followed. Donsig refused to take our advice later, claiming that it was not fair to the forum-goers, then proceeded to REFUSE to take it to the forums to ask their opinion.

I did not ask for a *chat room opinion* prior to the Aztec war. Go back and read the chat log Noldodan.

Originally posted by donsig
I did not ask for a *chat room opinion* prior to the Aztec war. Go back and read the chat log Noldodan.

I went back and read it, and found this: "[21:30] <@donsig> well, we have 4 legions outside Chalco and what do we say when Monty tells us to bug off?" I would say that that was asking for an opinion.

Originally posted by Noldodan

Donsig refused to take our advice later, claiming that it was not fair to the forum-goers, then proceeded to REFUSE to take it to the forums to ask their opinion.
And it was the opinion of 9 out of 13 people at the turnchat that the chat should stop, surely everybody that normally read the forums wanted a chance to respond too. However, donsig continued to play the game for 7 more turns even after a war had started! Donsig, do you consider this to be fair to the forum-goers?

Great! Now we've reverted back to a PI process. Can we stear this away from what happened (with proof attached) to what may happen. We really don't need to piss off the Mods again.

Originally posted by Noldodan


I went back and read it, and found this: "[21:30] <@donsig> well, we have 4 legions outside Chalco and what do we say when Monty tells us to bug off?" I would say that that was asking for an opinion.

That request was regarding my request to Fionn to upgrade three warriors. That was 9 minutes before the Aztec war started and two of three citizens who replied were pro-war. READ THE WHOLE CHAT LOG don't just pick out one line to try to prove your point! The Aztec crisis started at 21:39. From that point until the war was declared I did not ask for opinions or advice or instructions from leaders. Read the log before voting in this poll. The Aztec war should not be used as a rallying cry for those who want chat spot votes to run the demogame rather than forum votes.

The Aztec war should not be used as a rallying cry for those who want chat spot votes to run the demogame rather than forum votes.
I still don't understand why we have to have one or the other. Why not both?

Quite some time ago, I voted for the middle one.

This is the way we have done it so far this game, and as far as I'm concerned our President's literal interpretation of the Constitution hasn't really been a shot in the arm for Forum participation. Unless you want to count all of the discussion for new laws to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. ;)

As a former Forum participant, I looked forward to the chance to persuade other Fanaticans to follow a certain plan of action based on the most recent save. I don't feel that I had that chance during that set of turns. And I still feel wronged by the infamous chat in question, as well as poorly represented --- defending his actions, donsig includes me on the list of those that support a war but my response in the discussion thread only advocates war further down the road. Should I ever decide to join the discussions again, I will choose my words more carefully.

However, as far as gameplay goes, my outrage has turned into indifference, which has a few silver linings. One -- I am really enjoying my RL renaissance! Focus is back where it belongs, on work and family, with a few quick check-ins to make sure everything is ok in DG land. And two -- we now have a moderator who has no stake in Fanatica's future whatsoever.

So, continue the discourse, citizens of Fanatica. I will let you know when it gets ugly. :)

Originally posted by Veera Anlai

I still don't understand why we have to have one or the other. Why not both?
Because limiting official decision making votes to the fora gives all citizens something close to an equal opportunity to influence events since everyone in the demogame can vote and post here (bans not withstanding). Only some of our citizens are able to attend turnchats, and there is no good reason why those who cannot should have a lesser chance to shape the direction of our nation simply because they live in the wrong timezone or work inflexible hours that prevent them from joining the chats.

Originally posted by donsig
That request was regarding my request to Fionn to upgrade three warriors.

I can hardly see how the two relate. Now, I see some good points here, mostly about "forum-people versus chat-people." However, I see spot votes as having at least one major instance where they would apply. Say someone from another continent lands a Settler on someplace in our territory. We could block this settler, as we did with the Babs, but this action would have had no prior approval. So we have three choices: 1) Let the DP decide; Despotic regardless of his elected position (remember, in a Democracy we elect people to carry out our will, not to make decisions for us) 2) Take it to the forums; Time-consuming for a small matter, or 3) Have a chat spot vote of either citizens or the Council; More Democratic than simply allowing the DP to decide, and less time-consuming than taking it to the forums. There are many possible situations like this, consisting of surprising events that aren't major enough to take to the forums, but still requiring Democracy, that spot votes would be ideal for resolving.

I object to your characterization of option 3 as "more democratic".

It's faster - that's it. It's only democratic to those few that actually attend the chat. It's a crock to those of us who do not attend the chat and participate in the forums only.

Your example situation is a great example of leaders not being prepared. There are often incursions into our territory from other countries. There are even some discussions about how to prevent that. Why can't the leaders give a bit of thought to the hypothetical, and post a poll on how to deal with certain, general situations?

Any decision that affects the general movement of units I feel should start in the forums. The specifics of a move can be dealt with at chat time if detailed plans aren't available.

I've seen fairly significant decisions made via spot votes that I, and the other citizens that do not attend turn chats, do not get a chance to participate in.

I started this poll to see how people felt about spot votes. 7 people said none whatsoever - almost twice as many votes as those who consider them legal instructions. 12 people wanted them as informational only, not as instructions. I think the people have spoken on this issue.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
I object to your characterization of option 3 as "more democratic".

It's faster - that's it. It's only democratic to those few that actually attend the chat. It's a crock to those of us who do not attend the chat and participate in the forums only.
I would like you to answer this for me: Which is more democratic, having 1 person make a decision, or having around 12 people (the ones who attend the turnchat) make the decision? I voted for the middle option; I believe that the forums should be the first place to go, but if something unexpected comes up, spot votes should be the way to go on the issue. However, I feel that if it is something major, such as a declaration of war, and the game can be saved at that time (impossible for leaving territory demands, tribute demands, and the like, which should be done by spot vote) the chat should be stopped and discussion about what to do taken to the forums.

Your example situation is a great example of leaders not being prepared. There are often incursions into our territory from other countries. There are even some discussions about how to prevent that. Why can't the leaders give a bit of thought to the hypothetical, and post a poll on how to deal with certain, general situations?
You are right, we were unprepared for this. However, we cannot be prepared for every eventuality that comes up, how to respond to every country's demands to get out of their territory, tribute demands, etc. This is why I voted for spot votes in unforseen situations only.
I've seen fairly significant decisions made via spot votes that I, and the other citizens that do not attend turn chats, do not get a chance to participate in.
Whenever a significant decision comes up that could be taken to the forums, I believe that the chat should be stopped and the decision taken to the forums. However, in an unforseen situation where the game cannot be saved and uploaded, a spot vote is the best possible way to decide how to react.

I started this poll to see how people felt about spot votes. 7 people said none whatsoever - almost twice as many votes as those who consider them legal instructions. 12 people wanted them as informational only, not as instructions. I think the people have spoken on this issue.
12 people, a majority of those who voted, wanted to have spot votes for unforseen situations only.

Also, I'm sure you will agree with me that donsig should have taken the issue to the forums as soon as war was declared.

OK, bottom line is, if someone wants to take the time to write a law covering spot vote, then please do so, put it up for discussion if you think the existing discussion is insufficient, and then to an up/down poll on the proposed law. :)

I also think we'll have requests for prospective leaders' positions on chats & spot polls as part of the nomination / debate / election process.

Once donsig acts on the unanimous consent he is getting to renegotiate peace for contacts and gold, we will have plenty to discuss about actual game play.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming, in progress... :D