This poll is to propose acceptance of a new Law regarding the valid forms of instructions from Leaders to the DP. Discussion on this proposal can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57978)

If this proposed law is approved according to the rules for passing new laws, it will be inserted into the CoL at the next available section number, as administered by the judiciary.

The proposal is for one section on Valid Forms of Instructions from Leaders to the DP in several subsections:

[list=1]
The only binding instructions are those given in the Forums, either in a gameplay instruction thread, or in a standing orders thread.
Standing orders remain active while the player who posted them remains in the same office held when the orders are posted, or until superceded by a new standing order, or until cancelled. Once a turn using a standing order has been played, changes to that order must be announced in a new post, not in an edit to the original post. This prevents misunderstanding about when an order is posted. Standing orders can be superceded by gameplay instructions. Standing orders for all departments will be posted in a single, sticky thread in the main DemoGame forum.
Gameplay instructions pertain to a particular set of turns to be played, and must be posted in the gameplay instructions thread for those turns. Gameplay instructions supercede any conflicting standing orders from the same department.
To avoid situations of last minute changes possibly conflicting with actions already taken by the DP in game play, the DP will post a "play starting" response in the thread prior to starting play, and all changes to instructions must be posted in a new reply, not in an edit.
Fuller participation in and enjoyment of the game being desired, the DP is encouraged to play the game during an on-line chat session, but is allowed to play offline when circumstances warrant. In furtherance of the goal of encouraging DP's to play online, the election office may request any candidates for office to post their policy on turn chats as part of the nomination or debate threads.
During an on-line game play session (turn chat), the DP may request advice of any player. Any player may spontaneously give advice, which the DP is free to follow or not at his/her sole discretion. A non-binding spot vote of the council members (or representatives) present may be requested to obtain advice, but during play the only binding instructions are the ones posted in Standing Orders or Gameplay Instructions threads.
Standing orders must not be of the form "no xxx without yyy department approval". The intent of the game is to have well thought decisions. Therefore decisions can not be deferred until game play time in this way.
An instruction may be of the form "if xyz happens, stop play so discussion can be conducted", as long as it is possible to save the game without proceeding. This form of instruction can not be used for dialogs which require an immediate answer. The absense of such an order does not mean the game must continue, the DP may choose to stop the game and seek advice from the people at any time.
[/list=1]

I can't remember if a quorum is required for laws to be passed. This poll will be initially set for 2 days (48 hours) and if it needs to be left open longer to reach a quorum please contact the mods to change it.

Since the 2 days will occur longer than the time before the next TurnChat, please post all instructions in the gameplay thread, the proposed standing orders concept is not in force. :)

Now, in my capacity as a citizen, I will post this separately from the poll itself.

If you like most of the ideas in this proposal, and disagree with only a few, the best thing for the game is to vote yes. :) OTOH, if you feel you must vote against this, please comment on why. Although it is best for the DemoGame to get this written down, I will be happy to keep trying until a majority is comfortable with it.

I voted Yes for this. And As a PSC Board Member, Ill go ahead and look over a few things

I'm voting no because there should be no seperate standing orders thread. Game play instructions are difficult enough to sift through when they are all in one thread. Having two threads to jump back and forth between is asking too much of the DP. Leaders can copy and paste standing orders into each game play instruction thread.

Originally posted by DaveShack
Now, in my capacity as a citizen, I will post this separately from the poll itself.

If you like most of the ideas in this proposal, and disagree with only a few, the best thing for the game is to vote yes. :) OTOH, if you feel you must vote against this, please comment on why. Although it is best for the DemoGame to get this written down, I will be happy to keep trying until a majority is comfortable with it.

But by voting yes we'd be voting to accept the whole package. This is precisely the problem with trying to pass laws en masse. This proposal, with a seperate standing orders thread complicates the game play instruction process unneccessarily and this will lead to arguments when instructions are missed. We should be working to streamline and simplify the game play instruction process, not make it more unwieldy.

I must also vote No, as did donsig, although for entirely different reasons. I believe that not every situation can be planned for or even forecasted. Situations may change rapidly during the course of the turnchat. Somewhat large, though not pontentially game-ruining, decisions are left up to the DP to make, albeit with optional advice from the citizenry present. I would therefore like a provision to be made for spot votes in case of relatively small, non-game-stopping, events. If this is not included, the decision will be left up to the will of one person, regardless of the will of the people.

I also voted No, for similar reasons that Noldodan did. For instance, in the July 2 turnchat, there was absolutely no way that Zarn could have predicted that we would be at war and therefore to post what he wished that donsig would not sign the treaty. By doing things that are completely unpredictable, a President could get around instructions. Perhaps we need to make the declaration of war a chat-stopping issue, and we also need a means to have spot votes in the turnchat.

Also, the approval requirements to pass this as a law are either a superplurality of the people voting or a majority of the people voting plus a majority of the Senate as a whole. The quorum is 1/3 of the Fanatican citizenry who voted in the most active poll of the most recent full elections, therefore, 42/3=14 votes, which this poll has already met (15 votes at the moment).

this really should be one of those multiple choice polls instead of accept them all/accept none.

I will also vote no on this poll until there is a law allowing citizens *some* sort of control over their country while the DP plays the game. As it is, I believe passing these laws will negate such a law.

I voted YES. Although I agree with donsig about the Standing Order thread, the point he makes can be changed later, when we find out what a pain in the butt the rule really is. Standing Orders should go in the TCI. As we can change it later, I don't see why this Section can't get passed and on the books.

Personally, I can't see why paragraphs 5 and 6 are listed in this Section, but that is another minor point. By accepting this, we can get them on the books and relocated later.

I do not agree with Noldodan. We've just spent quite a bit of time discussing this matter and my thoughts are posted there. Let's just move on and get this thing passed and on the books.

There is a reason for having a separate Standing Orders thread. As Domestic Leader I want to say "The turn before a tech is discovered, lower the science rate to the lowest level that will produce the tech in one turn. Once it has been discovered, raise the science rate back up to a level which produces a minimum of +n gpt". I don't want to have to type this in 2-3 times a week, I want to put it in a single post in the Standing Orders thread, and know it will be followed every time the game is played, whether I remember to post it or not.

FA might have a SO for "check and report our reputation with all rivals (Polite, Cautious, Annoyed, etc.) every 5 turns." -- OK, that one is a little overboard but it's just to make a point anyway... ;)

Trade might have a SO for "reject all trade proposals from the AIs where we give a map".

These are all things which won't change for the entire term, and we should not have to write them every time the game is played.

Unless we're all a few slices short of a full loaf, this will be a very short list. ;) ;)

i sevond dave there. those instructions are at the moment posted in the departmental threads as policy (or were last game). but they never get respected as the DP only reads the TCI thread.

I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

Originally posted by DaveShack
There is a reason for having a separate Standing Orders thread. As Domestic Leader I want to say "The turn before a tech is discovered, lower the science rate to the lowest level that will produce the tech in one turn. Once it has been discovered, raise the science rate back up to a level which produces a minimum of +n gpt". I don't want to have to type this in 2-3 times a week, I want to put it in a single post in the Standing Orders thread, and know it will be followed every time the game is played, whether I remember to post it or not.

Never heard of copy and paste?

Why is it that your desire not to retype something is more important than making it easier on the DP to follow all the instructions given? The DP is playing the game and trying to report what is happening in the chat room and he has to look at the game play instruction thread. Now you want him to have to loook at another window as well just because you don't like typing?

Originally posted by Noldodan
I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

Governors have deputies that can post instructions. Governors can also post instructions as sson as the game play instruction thread is opened. These instructions can always be edited up until game play time. Also, governors can construct build queues that are 30 to 40 turns (3 to 4 game play sesssions) long so that missing one set of instructions does not neccessarily mean the will of the people as expressed bu the governor gets ignored if instructions aren't posted.

But what if, as I said before, something like what happened to me happened again. And would someone please tell me why instructions in the chat are less valid?

Originally posted by Noldodan
I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

Noldodan, this too has been discussed extensively in prior threads. Simply put, the Leaders at the t/c do not order the DP around. The President/DP may ask the Leaders for input or advice on a matter, but certainly does not ask for instruction. Instructions are to be left in the TCI by the appropriate Leaders.

For your examples, if a Leader was present in a t/c and had not posted instructions in the TCI, I would think that they would have to have a damn good excuse after what we've just been through. Aside from that, in the examples you listed, I'm sure the DP would seek advice from the Leader in regards to their Department or Province. Just because what Leaders say in a t/c are not legal instructions doesn't mean that the DP won't ask for advice or follow said advice. It just means he's not required to.

So, cyc, what you're saying pretty much is that it is OK to give instructions in the turnchat IF they had no chance to post them in the thread?

No what I'm saying is if the Leader didn't post any Instructions in the TCI for whatever reasons, but has made themselves available to the President in the t/c for any advice that may be asked of them, then they can offer said advice to the President or wait to be asked for said advice. This "advice" may or may not be followed to the letter, as this "advice" is not a "valid instruction".

So instructions posted during the chat are invalid because they are "ordering the DP around"? But aren't the instructions in the TCI thread also "ordering the DP around"?

No, Noldodan. Instructions left in the TCI are "valid instructions" left by a Departmental or Provincial Leaders concerning their Department or Province. This is basic protocol. The people pass their voice onto the Leaders and the Leaders pass the people's voice onto the President. All this transpires prior to the t/c. This let's not only the President, but the people of Fanatica, be prepared for the t/c as they can view the "legal and valid instructions" in the TCI prior to the t/c.

I'm voting "no" to this proposal, despite the fact that I do like much of the content. I very much agree with Donsig that a separate "standing orders" thread will make life harder for the DP - not just in terms of effort but by increasing the potential for confusion and thus mistaken deviation from the intention of the instructions.

I would also take issue with the wording of item 4:

"To avoid situations of last minute changes possibly conflicting with actions already taken by the DP in game play, the DP will post a "play starting" response in the thread prior to starting play, and all changes to instructions must be posted in a new reply, not in an edit."

It is ambiguous as to whether this requires all alterations to instructions to be posted in the form of a new reply, or merely those after the DP posts notification of the start of play. The latter seems not too unreasonable, but the former would make interpretation of the instuction thread hell on wheels since various conflicting instructions for the same department could be posted - again increasing the chances that the DP could miss something or implement an instruction that had in fact been superceded.

:) Good point, Ek. I noticed that too, but forgot to mention it. It could say...

... and all changes to instructions after the "play starting" response has been posted must be posted in a new reply, not in an edit.

Originally posted by donsig


Never heard of copy and paste?

Why is it that your desire not to retype something is more important than making it easier on the DP to follow all the instructions given? The DP is playing the game and trying to report what is happening in the chat room and he has to look at the game play instruction thread. Now you want him to have to loook at another window as well just because you don't like typing?

No, you miss the point entirely, partly my fault for phrasing it inefficiently. ;)

If there are NO other instructions for a department, or the leader is unable to post for some reason (internet access down, sick & in bed, worked 14 hours that day, etc.) the standing orders thread is still there as a backup. With your solution, even if a leader can post but forgets to copy the SO into the gameplay thread, suddenly the chains are loosed and the DP can do whatever he wants with that situation.

I want SO's to be one time only "do this for the whole term unless we tell you otherwise" instructions, not something that has to be stated over and over.

Originally posted by Noldodan
For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

I'm a little disappointed that there were responses which said no instructions during TC but none addressed these specific situations. Bottom line for me is that some people don't want to recognize that sometimes things don't go according to plan, or they are too greedy "oh goody, no instructions from xxx dept/governor, so I can play it anyway I want".

Originally posted by Cyc
This let's not only the President, but the people of Fanatica, be prepared for the t/c as they can view the "legal and valid instructions" in the TCI prior to the t/c.

This is a pretty sad excuse for letting the DP have his way with the game if instructions aren't posted, especially since there are valid reasons why a leader might be temporarily unable to post. Since a chat log is maintained, the people can also see their leaders instructions even if they were given during chat.

Imagine a leader who sets an alarm for just before the TC to get up at 3am local time to post instructions, to let the people in other time zones have their say. They miss hitting "save changes" by a few seconds and the DP starts, and their post shows up after the "starting chat" post. Suddenly they got up early for no reason because the DP doesn't have to follow their instructions and there is no way to force them to be recognized. This also applies to the concept of a separate standing orders thread -- not having a separate thread and forcing orders to be copied into the gameplay thread is an accident (or abuse of power) waiting to happen.

Arguments about leaders who might ignore the people and operate only in chat are valid, but let's not forget the potential to silence both the people and their leaders if we deny leaders the opportunity to pass on their instructions in any form possible.

Originally posted by DaveShack


I'm a little disappointed that there were responses which said no instructions during TC but none addressed these specific situations. Bottom line for me is that some people don't want to recognize that sometimes things don't go according to plan, or they are too greedy "oh goody, no instructions from xxx dept/governor, so I can play it anyway I want".

Well, DS - I think that's a little off color. Why don't I pull a disorganizer here and say that it really works both ways. It's the "greedy" Leaders that feel they are priviliged enough to ignore their responsibilities and just show up at the t/c and bless us with their instructions.

As I said before, it's a matter of protocol, so that everyone knows what's going down in the next t/c beforehand.

I am starting to see the benefit of an SO thread in regards to the "no instructions posted" comment you made. But, as I've staed before in previous posts, the DP should be able to remember standing orders from a Leader, one t/c to the next. If not, they are posted in the previous TCI.

It's a Yes for me. I realised that I had to vote yes if I think these aren't complete yet. I want a rule in these that describes the situation when a chat has to be stopped. Everyone has in his games a moment when something happens that wasn't expected and then you take a moment to have a good look at it. Those moments are chat-stoppers.

I also think the "standing orders" thing is just easy to work with if the DP copy / pastes it into the instructions thread right after the "play started" message.

Furthermore I think the "play started" post can follow a "play starts in 5 minutes" message.

Originally posted by Cyc

Well, DS - I think that's a little off color.


Sorry, just making a point about the potential problem from the other point of view.

Why don't I pull a disorganizer here and say that it really works both ways. It's the "greedy" Leaders that feel they are priviliged enough to ignore their responsibilities and just show up at the t/c and bless us with their instructions.


Their opponents in the next election can point out their shortcomings and make it an easy race! :cool: And we should consider some form of limit, which is why I left it out of the current proposal, to give it more time to "cook". (sorry pro-chat crowd, but we have to get the forum part defined and then we can take a crack at the chat side)

Quoting DaveShack:
Imagine a leader who sets an alarm for just before the TC to get up at 3am local time to post instructions, to let the people in other time zones have their say. They miss hitting "save changes" by a few seconds and the DP starts, and their post shows up after the "starting chat" post.
________________________________________

This is a pretty sad excuse for a leader to not have "valid" instructions posted in the TCI. Normally there are three days or so to post these instructions. If the leader feels there is absolutely NO way he can post instructions until the last minute before the t/c because he has not heard from his constituents, then he must make a decision on his own. If the same situation arises because he feels he needs to wait for the results of a poll, then he can post instructions well before the t/c indicating that the DP is to abide the the results of this poll and provide a link. This is not brain surgery here. Three days is plenty of time to figure out what to post in the TCI.

I wish to change my vote from Yes to No

That would make it 10 to 8. Only one more convert needed. :goodjob:

BTW, I voted no before. I don't think this is needed at would give the Prez some more work.

Time has run out, and the vote is 12-8 in the affirmative, or 20 votes cast. There were 42 votes in the latest Presidential election, so this poll received a number of votes greater than 1/3 of the number of votes in the previous election, thus a quorum is present. (there would have to be >60 votes in another of the election polls to make this one fall short of quorum).

If this is considered an "amendment" to the CoL then a Senate vote is required. If it is considered an "original part" of the CoL then no Senate vote would be required. To be safe, and save time if it gets appealed to the Judiciary, let's just have a Senate vote anyway.

Manual poll: The Senate will please vote on this proposal. The thread is open for Senate votes for 2 days or until a decision is reached. The approval requirement is a majority, which with 4 eligible to vote means 3 or more Yes, or 2 Yes and no more than 1 No. (votes of 4-0-0, 3-0-1, 3-1-0, 2-1-1, 2-0-1, 2-1-0, 2-0-0 result in approval).

Quirinal province votes No, due to reasons stated in previous posts. Also, it requires a majority of the full senate, so that 3 yes votes are required, and abstentions and failures to vote have the same effect as no votes.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Also, it requires a majority of the full senate, so that 3 yes votes are required, and abstentions and failures to vote have the same effect as no votes.

Hmmm, that's not what majority vote usually means. I'd guess it was worded that way to avoid 1-0 votes, but that will be a kinda hard standard to meet.

The Governor of Aventine Province votes NO to this proposed law.

The Governor of Esquiline stays with the vote; Yes.

Additions same as my previous post;

I want a rule in these that describes the situation when a chat has to be stopped. Everyone has in his games a moment when something happens that wasn't expected and then you take a moment to have a good look at it. Those moments are chat-stoppers.

I also think the "standing orders" thing is just easy to work with if the DP copy / pastes it into the instructions thread right after the "play started" message.

Furthermore I think the "play started" post can follow a "play starts in 5 minutes" message

And GBM remains absent...

And the current status of this proposal is, what?

Well, Gingerbread Man will decide whether or not this law passes.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Quirinal province votes No, due to reasons stated in previous posts. Also, it requires a majority of the full senate, so that 3 yes votes are required, and abstentions and failures to vote have the same effect as no votes.

According to this post, it didn't pass. It's 1-2-1 right now.

Hey, you're right! Due to the fact that a majority of the Senate is now impossible to acheive, this law does not pass.