I think that is pretty self-explanatory. I am not even certain who the ops are for that room anymore, but I think it would be best if you elected a couple.

That sounds like a good idea, but it'll have to have disorganizer's approval, and who knows where he is these days.

Just to clarify. The current ops of the Demogame room would be de-opped unless they became the elected ops. This way, all ops in the room are accountable to the citizens.

I don't know. I think the ops' job is something like the moderators: Keeping the peace and order of the chat room. Should we elect mods as well?

Oct has it right. The creator of the room essentially has unlimited mod powers in the room and cannot be removed without destroying the room and recreating it (afaik). Also, it seems to me that in the past, we always updated the op list to coincide with the current administration.

Are you suggesting that this method is no longer acceptable? I hadn't given it any thought, but at first glance, it doesn't seem flawed, but if anyone does think so, please speak now so we can address this issue before the game commences.

I believe what eyrei may be addressing is the fact that at some times, it seems that there are more ops in the chatroom than actual participants. This comes from someone who is opped granting his powers to someone else and so on.

I should probably state that I have no idea how the op selection process works, or who our current ops even are. It does seem pretty apparent that op selection lies solely with the chatroom owner and is really not accountable to CFC in any way. While this is unfortunate, I am not convinced that electing our ops will solve that.

In the future, I would like to see op powers given to the owner, 2 appointed ops(with only one on active duty at a time), the President, and the Vice President. No half-ops, whatever those are. ;) I would also like to discuss the possibility of "impeaching" an op, should their judgment come into question. disorganiser would need to be involved in this process.

Does anyone else need to be opped? The Chief Justice perhaps, but that's about it. Please let me know what you think.

Personally, I believe the owner should be the king op. That person should appoint a head op and a back-up. The President should also be an op. No more are needed. If the VP needs to be op'd, then the VP will have to have that done by an exisiting op. This would put prevalance on the President keeping control of the t/c. I see no reason for having more ops than citizens at a chat. Although the ops have never gotten out of line with their authority (although it has come really close sometimes), it looks kind of silly having 6 ops and 2 citizens. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by eyrei
Just to clarify. The current ops of the Demogame room would be de-opped unless they became the elected ops. This way, all ops in the room are accountable to the citizens.

well, I think there goes my "Op for life" credencials

Cyc's right. The owner of the room should appoint two super-ops that would be equally responsible for appointing the temporary ops as needed throughout the playing of the game. These ops would have the following responsibilities:
Once elections have concluded, de-op the previous term's President.
Once elections have concluded, op the newly elected President.
Temporarily Op the DP of any official chat if that person is not the President.
If requested by the DP, serve as Sergeant at Arms to assist the DP in maintaining order during the chat.

I am against the reformation of the #demogame Ops. I would like to see it as it is currently now.

Originally posted by FortyJ
Cyc's right. The owner of the room should appoint two super-ops that would be equally responsible for appointing the temporary ops as needed throughout the playing of the game. These ops would have the following responsibilities:
Once elections have concluded, de-op the previous term's President.
Once elections have concluded, op the newly elected President.
Temporarily Op the DP of any official chat if that person is not the President.
If requested by the DP, serve as Sergeant at Arms to assist the DP in maintaining order during the chat.


I don't want dis appointing anyone. While I do like him, trust him to a great extent, and think he should be given props for founding that chatroom, he has no business appointing those who will oversee our turnchats since he is no longer involved in the game.

Basically, I want those two 'superops' to be elected, unless you all want DZ and I to do it. Personally, I would prefer they were elected.

The details of it are not all that important. The main thing is that I want the chat room under the control of people who are accountable to the players of this game, and only those people.

that actually makes sense. The problem will be making it a reality. If dis is no longer involved, it may be difficult to set the room up as you have described. I'd be happy to set up a new room and appoint a pair of "super-ops" according to the elections held in the game, but I certainly don't want to step on dis' toes.

Originally posted by FortyJ
that actually makes sense. The problem will be making it a reality. If dis is no longer involved, it may be difficult to set the room up as you have described. I'd be happy to set up a new room and appoint a pair of "super-ops" according to the elections held in the game, but I certainly don't want to step on dis' toes.

Since the new game isn't going to start for a little while, we will probably be able to get dis involved in this discussion...at least long enough to find out what our options are.

I think we should do away with chats.

Even if public turn chats are done away with, it would make sense to have an official chat room for online discussions and such.

Chats are one of the best parts of the demogame!
We can't just take that away.

FortyJ is right when it comes to the part about destroying the room and recreating it. It's a tedious process to change the room's ownership.

For everyone's information, currently myself, Falcon02, CivGeneral, and disorganizer are ops in #demogame.

If the concern is an excess of operators, we simply do away with the tradition of adding the President and VP to the temporary op list.

I also see no need to use elections for accountability purposes. If anything, electing ops could be harmful to the room, as it creates the possibility of a constant change in ops, which can wreak havoc when one doesn't know how to run things like the previous one did. Stability is the best for chatrooms.

If anything, a recall process for operators could be designed (and I know we all hate THAT word). Give the ops indefinite terms. When someone has a legitamite griveance against an op, he initates the recall, and a new op is elected.

"designed"....yeah, I can't stand that word either. :lol:

Seriously, I see no reason to do away with having our President on the temporary op list. The VP maybe. But this would not be the place to make cuts.

eyrei, do you think that the recall idea would satisfy the will of the people? Aside from occasional spamming during the game, I have no problem with the current roster of ops. If it gets out of control, I can initiate a recall myself. ;)

Now that I have won over the current op establishment :mischief: , I would also request that eyrei and myself are granted op status should we be present at a chat. Does anyone have any objections to this?

The main reason I brought this up was because it looks as though we will codify turn chats before the next game starts. A constitutionally sanctioned institution should be run by a democractically elected council.

The ability to recall ops serves little purpose, because any damage they could do would take place within a few minutes. If we want to handle it as problems arise, I suggest we simply give the DP the ability to 'fire' an op if he misbehaves.

I prefer having them elected instead. The commands needed to voice, devoice, etc are hardly complicated and can be learned in a few minutes, so there is no real issue with the elected ops not having the skills to do the job. Plus, I imagine that only those with some degree of knowledge in that area will run for the positions.

And Octavian, my concern is an excess of operators, but I think a much more democratic way of dealing with it is to remove the unelected ones we have, and replace them with a smaller number of elected ones. The DP needs to be op-ed, regardless.

eyrei makes some excellent points and IMO is 100% correct. I second his motion and suggest that this be decided in a poll.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I also see no need to use elections for accountability purposes. If anything, electing ops could be harmful to the room, as it creates the possibility of a constant change in ops, which can wreak havoc when one doesn't know how to run things like the previous one did. Stability is the best for chatrooms.

I have to agree with Oct on this one.

It takes all of 10 minutes to learn the various commands needed to effectively "police" a room. Give the new ops a night to purge themselves of the desire to needlessly devoice and/or kick people out of the room (preferably not during a turn chat ;)), and they're ready to go.

I don't see how this could be harmful. Besides, a constant change in ops could be a good thing. Perhaps even a mandatory rotation through the entire citizenry might create a calmer, more productive chat session, since everyone would have a better understanding of proper behavior during an official chat.

Of course, perhaps I'm just being myopic, so I encourage the opposing viewpoint to illustrate precisely how an elected op could wreak havoc on the chat room.

Originally posted by Octavian X
FortyJ is right when it comes to the part about destroying the room and recreating it. It's a tedious process to change the room's ownership.
We're evidently using the wrong network then. Switching channel ownership over on StarChat has certainly never proved difficult for me.

As eryei as mentioned this in the CoS turn chat thread, have we reached a conclusion on this?

-- Ravensfire

So we'd have the owner of the room (who? disorganizer?), the Designated Player (automatically assigned Operator status - no need to be elected) and 2 back-up Ops (who would be elected?). Can we get an organizational chart going here to help us think this through?