DG2 CoS Sections D and E:

D. Chat Turn Procedures
1. The Designated Player (see Chain of Command) should start the chat at least
10 minutes before the scheduled time and begin play at the specified start time.
2. If the Designated Player is more than 10 minutes late a new player will be
chosen from the officials present following the Chain of Command.
3. The Designated Player will upload a save of the game after turn 0, every 5 turns
after that and a final save at the conclusion of the chat.
4. If the Designated Player leaves, they pass a current save game and control to
the next person in the COC.
5. If the Designated Player disappears and has not reappeared within 10 minutes,
the next person on the COC will become the Designated Player using the most
recently uploaded save game.
6. If a game has to be used that is not current then the moves from the chat log
must be duplicated.
7. Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that chat
turn and will not relinquish play to a late arriving/returning but higher ranked
official.

E. Chat Turn Rules
1. Only citizens of the Democracy game will be voiced.
2. Citizens are encouraged to provide constructive advice & positively contribute
to the chat. They can also take part in any Citizen Spot Poll.
3. The Designated Player reserves the right to use Cabinet Votes instead of
Citizen Spot Polls.
4. Spaming, lobbying, repetitive questions and any other unnecessary traffic in the
chat is forbidden.
5. Clones are not allowed!
6. Violations of the chat rules will result in the offender being de-voiced.
7. The chat operators hold the right to de-voice all non-officials if the chat gets too
confusing or is disturbed by someone permanently. The Designated Player
makes this decision.
8. De-voicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated
by the Judge Advocate.
9. During turn-chat, #Civfanatics is still open for totally free discussions.
Departments or special interest groups can also open private discussion rooms.
10. The Designated Player retains the right to end the chat turn at his/her discretion.


As these deal with the same subject, I combined them.

-- Ravensfire

Transpose the words "chat" and "turn" in D.7.

In E.8 we should take out "and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls", and that should not be investigated. We should, however, put in a clause that states "A Designated Player may call for a Citizen Spot Vote or a Council Spot vote at any time, although the results of these polls are advisory at best and are not binding."

I am missing the concept of "the chat log" here.
It is a tricky one because not everyone (including me) is able to keep a log automatically.

All actions taken in a Turn chat should be recorded in a chat log, RM. If you can't record a t/c log, you should make sure someone can and will before you start.

Actually, D.7 should be changed to:

"Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that turn chat
and will not be required to relinquish play to a late arriving/returning but higher ranked
official. If a player does wish to relinquish control of the save to another player in the COC, the controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of."

Although we explicity state it, I would like to add, under D.1., that the DP may start playing the save prior to the start time of the turn chat for the sole purpose of preperation activities that may be immediately undone without reloading the game, and that these actions may be done off-line.

I believe this is allowed under Article K, correct?

-- Ravensfire

Unless the chat operators are elected, I oppose giving them even an inkling of power to devoice anyone.

A repost of what I wrote in eyrei's request thread on this subject ~

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?

Originally posted by Cyc
A repost of what I wrote in eyrei's request thread on this subject ~

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?

Since dis isn't around much, I would suggest replacing him with DZ and I. Other than that, I think 2 other elected ops would be fine. The DP should, of course, be an op.

Works for me. If we can get a Moderator sanctioned election on this and if sucsessful, an order to move forward on this, our Chat Room will become current and accountable. Let's do it.

Though being a current operator makes me biased, I still don't believe that op elections are necessary. We've not had may trouble before with the current system, and I doubt we will in the future. Disorganizer has kept operators in line, often investigating devoicings himself. The last (and only) time I devoiced many in the chatroom, dis personally looking into the incident. Elections would be a needless hassle.

Regaurdless of how we decide to go about handling the process of naming Chat Room Operators, we still need to make the changes in Sections D and E listed below.

D.4. If the Designated Player leaves, they pass a current save game and control to the next person in the COC. The controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

D.7. Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that turn chat
and will not be required to relinquish play to a late arriving/returning but higher ranked
official. If a player does wish to relinquish control of the save to another player in the COC, the controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

In E.8, we should take out "and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls", and that should not be investigated. We should, however, put in a clause that states "A Designated Player may call for a Citizen Spot Vote or a Council Spot vote at any time, although the results of these polls are advisory at best and are not binding."

Originally posted by Cyc
In E.8, we should take out "and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls", and that should not be investigated. We should, however, put in a clause that states "A Designated Player may call for a Citizen Spot Vote or a Council Spot vote at any time, although the results of these polls are advisory at best and are not binding."

Someone, remind me. Did we keep the clause somewhere in the CoL that allowed Council Votes to overrule legal instructions of other leaders? If so, than we need this particular clause to state that spot council votes during chats are legal as well.

If we do decide to making changing legal instructions allowable with a Council Vote, Oct, then the above wording works. 1 the eclusion of Citizen Spot Polls being investigated automatically has nothing to do with what you said. 2. The other wording says that Council Votes could be called (such as for changing legal instructiuons) but would not be binding if the DP disagreed with the outcome. This is NOT saying that a DP couldn't call a Council Vote to change a legal instruction and have the results of that vote be official. Official is different than binding.

Originally posted by Octavian X


Someone, remind me. Did we keep the clause somewhere in the CoL that allowed Council Votes to overrule legal instructions of other leaders? If so, than we need this particular clause to state that spot council votes during chats are legal as well.

Octavian,

The current proposal for section D of the CoL does not include council votes of any type - spot or otherwise.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
If we do decide to making changing legal instructions allowable with a Council Vote, Oct, then the above wording works. 1 the eclusion of Citizen Spot Polls being investigated automatically has nothing to do with what you said. 2. The other wording says that Council Votes could be called (such as for changing legal instructiuons) but would not be binding if the DP disagreed with the outcome. This is NOT saying that a DP couldn't call a Council Vote to change a legal instruction and have the results of that vote be official. Official is different than binding.

As most of you are aware, I am STRONGLY against any type of an "official" vote within a turn chat. As a citizen that chooses to not attend turn chats, I consider any vote during the chat that forces the DP to perform any in-game action to be unconstitutional as it violate my right to participate.

Now, can the DP request advice, which may or may not be expressed as a poll, sure. Must the DP follow such advice, nope. The DP should be allowed to go against the unanimous advice of everyone attending the chat.

-- Ravensfire

1 and 2 are confusing. There's a scheduled chat time. The DP should start the chat ten minutes early but if he or she is ten minutes late we move down the chain of command. Now is that ten minutes after the scheduled time or ten minutes after the DP is supposed to start the chat?

4 and 5 address the same thing. One should go.

I am totally against holding either citizen spot votes or cabinet/council votes in the chat. Since there is no guarantee that all citizens or all council/cabinet members will be present at the chat we should not use votes at the chat to make game play decisions. We've vested our trust in our DP, let him get whatever advice he wants and make the decisions or end the chat and go to the forums.

Originally posted by ravensfire

As most of you are aware, I am STRONGLY against any type of an "official" vote within a turn chat. As a citizen that chooses to not attend turn chats, I consider any vote during the chat that forces the DP to perform any in-game action to be unconstitutional as it violate my right to participate.


I would like to take a shot at changing your mind, to allow an exception making a chat vote binding for one very specific situation. I am equally strongly in favor of a provision which would require the DP to stop play if the chat participants vote to stop. It should be obvious (though some people have gone out of their way to miss this point) that the reason for having a binding vote to stop the chat is for the express purpose of allowing those who don't attend chats to have their say in the forum. Is this not the very reason you don't want to have free-for-all spot voting? Let's allow the chat participants to force a play stoppage so that you can have your say.

I would also like to make an instruction given during the chat by a leader or other department representative binding, though that is quite a different situation and I expect a great deal more opposition to this idea. I would be willing to limit this to a decision on how to handle a popup which is not already covered by the advance instructions from that leader. We all know that even with the most thorough planning, sometimes a decision pops up without warning. It's annoying that the game doesn't let us look around prior to answering the popup. I would rather place the decision on such an unplanned event in the hands of the person we elect to specialize in an area, than just leave all such decisions to the DP.

The reason for my position on this is that the DP is so busy following all the other instructions that offhand knowledge of our relative military strength, ongoing alliances, and other background data is less than you would normally see in an individual game where one person has been following everything, so the designated leader will likely have more current knowledge.

DS,

A good try - but I am still against it. For example - everyone at the chat wants to stop the session. That's probably 3-4 people. What if I, were I there, would want it to continue?

We have elected the person playing the game - why should we treat them like a robot. They are intelligent, thoughtful people playing the game to the best of their abilities. The DP should be the only person who can unilaterally stop the game mid-chat absent a legal instruction.

Leaders issuing legal, binding instructions outside of the instruction thread - that means that I, as a citizen not at the chat, don't have the opportunity to participate in the discussions about that decision. That's flat wrong. At this point in time, our leaders should have a good idea about what popups *might* appear in a session. Look at Boots during DG3 Term 5 - his instructions covered just about every possible scenario. Every popup I had to deal with as DP was covered - no problem.

Sorry, DaveShack, I still firmly believe that the only legal instructions the DP must follow are those in the Instruction Thread. The DP may request advice from those at the chat, but should consider that only advice. The citizens attending the chat represent a small minority of citizens there - I do not want them to have a disproportionate amount of power relative to the citizens who do not attend the chat. That blatently violates our Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

DaveShack, I know your heart is in the right place this holiday season but giving those at the chat the power to stop the chat opens the door for other votes. If we allow those at the chat to require the chat be stopped, why wouldn't we allow them to force the chat to continue? (Anyone remember PI#6?) Why wouldn't we allow them to have a voice in the unexpected pop-up window decisions? Etc. etc., etc. No, we are better off specifying in the code of laws a maximum number of turns that can be played (say ten), give the DP discretion to stop the chat before that maximum is reached and go one with demogame life. The DP can always play it safe and stop a chat if there's an outcry to do so. With a statitory(sp) limit on the number of turns played we can ensure (as best we can) that not many turns will be played past a critical decision point if the chat is not stopped.

I am also totally against binding instructions of any kind given at the chat. Our legal life would be so much easier if we explicitly defined what a legal game play instruction is and peg our laws to that definition. That will be difficult enough to do within the confines of the game play instruction thread, let's not create ourselves more headaches by trying to define legal instructions given during a chat. The DP will always be free to consult with any leaders and citizens at the chat anyway. By not allowing binding instructions to be given at the chat we can better monitor how our elected leaders are doing their jobs - for we can look at the game play instructions threads to see what they are doing with the authority we gave them.

Originally posted by donsig
Our legal life would be so much easier if we explicitly defined what a legal game play instruction is and peg our laws to that definition.

And 'lo, a thread was found (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72852).

And there, on the other side, in the middle of the other siee, away from everything else on the other side, in parantheses, capital letters, quotated, read the following words:

("KID, HAVE YOU DEFINED LEGAL INSTRUCTIONS?")

:crazyeye:

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
Regaurdless of how we decide to go about handling the process of naming Chat Room Operators, we still need to make the changes in Sections D and E listed below.

D.4. If the Designated Player leaves, they pass a current save game and control to the next person in the COC. The controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

D.7. Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that turn chat
and will not be required to relinquish play to a late arriving/returning but higher ranked
official. If a player does wish to relinquish control of the save to another player in the COC, the controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

In E.8, we should take out "and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls", and that should not be investigated. We should, however, put in a clause that states "A Designated Player may call for a Citizen Spot Vote or a Council Spot vote at any time, although the results of these polls are advisory at best and are not binding."

So, I can assume with all the verbage that has transpired since I posted the above, that these concerns will be followed verbatim?

Cyc,

Suggestion to D.4 looks good, makes a lot of sense, as does D.7.

E.8 - No, no, no, no, NO! There should be no references of any type to any kind of spot votes! Period. If you want to put anything, put something like the DP may request advice from those attending the turn chat, but is not obligated to act upon that advice.

Spot Votes == Bad Thing

-- Ravensfire

I'll add my voice to those saying spot votes should not be written into law and should be considered only advice from those present at the chat.

That was my intent, so leaving those "forbidden words" out of the text is fine with me. (See my post to Octavian.)

You're right! :goodjob:

Those foul words are a touchy subject with me though - I'm doing my best to ensure such vile concepts never enter the game!

-- Ravensfire

I registered a new channel called #Turnchat on mIRC. That should clear up any problems resulting from trying to change ownership.

Is #turnchat going to become the official channel for turnchats, or only a secondary channel in case conflicts arise?

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Is #turnchat going to become the official channel for turnchats, or only a secondary channel in case conflicts arise?

It is my intention that it be the official channel, so we don't have to worry about the channel owner not being around.

Proposal to be polled in 2004

D. Turn Chat Procedures
1. The Designated Player (see Chain of Command) should be in the chat room at
least 10 minutes before the scheduled time and begin play at the specified
start time. The Designated Player may conduct any prepatory activities
that can be immediately undone without reloading the save, at any time
prior to the start of the turn chat.
a. The primary chat room shall be #Turnchat on irc.irc-chat.net.
2. If the Designated Player has not shown up 10 minutes after the scheduled
start of the turn chat, a new Designated Player shall be chosen from the
officials present following the Chain of Command.
3. The Designated Player shall upload a save of the game after turn 0, every 5
turns after that, and a final save at the conclusion of the chat.
4. If the Designated Player voluntarily relinquishes control, they shall post a
current save of the game in the TCIT. The next person in the COC attending
the chat shall download this save and resume playing the game with that save.
5. If the Designated Player disappears and has not reappeared within 10 minutes,
the next person attending the chat on the COC shall become the Designated
Player using the most recently uploaded save game.
6. If a game has to be used that is not current, then the moves from the chat log
must be duplicated.
7. Once a player has started playing the save, they are the Designated Player for
that turn chat and shall not be required to relinquish play to a late
arriving/returning, but higher ranked official.

E. Turn Chat Rules
1. Only citizens of the Democracy game shall be voiced.
2. Citizens are encouraged to provide constructive advice & positively contribute
to the chat.
3. Spaming, lobbying, repetitive questions and any other unnecessary traffic in the
chat is forbidden.
4. Clones are not allowed!
5. Violations of the chat rules shall result in the offender being de-voiced.
6. The chat operators hold the right to de-voice all non-officials if the chat gets too
confusing or is disturbed by someone permanently. The Designated Player
makes this decision.
7. De-voicing actions shall be investigated by the Judiciary.
8. During turn chats, #Demogame is still open for totally free discussions.
Departments or special interest groups can also open private discussion rooms.
9. The Designated Player retains the right to end the chat turn at their discretion.


-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire, a question ~

Where did we specify the maximum number of turns to be played in a chat?If you remember, you can save me a lot of research. Of course if you know that we didn't do it, it will also save me the same research time.

If we have not specified the maximum number of turns to be played in a turn chat, then we should do so and we should make it so by law in the CoL. In post #20 of this thread, donsig brought that point up, but I'm not sure we carried through with it. I like the inclusion of your E.9 (above), but that should be applied to anytime prior of the maximum turns allowed.

Well, I just went through what we've approved so far and can't find any verbage concerning the maximum number of turns allowed in a turn chat. Thoughts?

Originally posted by Cyc
Well, I just went through what we've approved so far and can't find any verbage concerning the maximum number of turns allowed in a turn chat. Thoughts?

Wow - completely missed this!

Good question. Tradition says 10, but you know how I feel about tradition - it's all good and nice, but mean exactly squat in the Judiciary!

I would recommend that we require the President to state in their turn chat schedule the maximum number of turns the chat will go.

-- Ravensfire

I like the idea of having a max number of turns simply because it allows for better planning by the various leaders. The more turns that are played the more the game situation changes from when the chat started, thus increasingly making the leaders instructions less relevant. I think 10 is a good number turns.

Originally posted by ravensfire


I would recommend that we require the President to state in their turn chat schedule the maximum number of turns the chat will go.

-- Ravensfire

Great idea, Ravensfire. I'd like to see that too. But we need something in the laws that state the MAXIMUM number of turns a DP is allowed to play in a turn chat.

How far do you have to think back in your life to remember a politician that didn't fulfill his campaign promises. Or didn't follow the proposed schedule or timeline?

We need legislation stating the Maximum number of turns allowed in any Turn Chat by any player. You know as well as I do we can't just wish or hope things go the way we planned them. ;)

Originally posted by zorven
I like the idea of having a max number of turns simply because it allows for better planning by the various leaders. The more turns that are played the more the game situation changes from when the chat started, thus increasingly making the leaders instructions less relevant. I think 10 is a good number turns.

Here's my problem with stating a maximum number of turns - the first Term.

Hey - let's limit ourselves to a 10-turn chat for the first month - cool! That means we'll have what, 30 minute chats, at most? C'mon - we don't need to be THAT slow.

In this regard, let this be handled by the President, to a point. Remeber, citizens have the right to demand a vote of an office holder on a specific issue within the domain of that office holder. At least, once CoL Article C passes they will. I quote:
6. Right to Seek a Redress of Grievances
B. Any citizen can request that a departmental leader post a poll that lies
within that leader’s responsibilities.
1. If two other citizens agree with the proposed poll (proposal
seconded and carried) the request becomes a demand and the
leader must comply.
In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.

-- Ravensfire

I'm OK with having a variable number of turns per chat specified in advance by the President, but the number to be played needs to be announced far enough in advance that leaders can conduct discussions and post instructions that go far enough into the future.

How about saying the turnchat schedule and number of turns to be played for each must be posted at least 3 days prior to the scheduled time for the chat. This would give adequate planning time and permit someone to challenge the number of turns to be played if it seems too far out of line.

On a separate subject, have we set a law or standard for the information which must be provided in the turn log? A log of the chat without specifying what it must contain is insufficient. My inclination is that it needs to be at least as detailed as the average Succession Game turnlog. Late in DG3 we started getting 10 line summaries instead of an actual log and it became difficult to determine exactly what was done, and why.

Originally posted by ravensfire


Here's my problem with stating a maximum number of turns - the first Term.

Hey - let's limit ourselves to a 10-turn chat for the first month - cool! That means we'll have what, 30 minute chats, at most? C'mon - we don't need to be THAT slow....

...In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.

-- Ravensfire

That's pure b/s Ravensfire, as is your claim of wanting this game to be forum based. You tell these citizen how much you favor control of the game to be forum based, then you want to railroad a rule through that allows the President to play as many turns as they damn well feel like, without any citizen input from the forums. What hogwash! You're pulling the wool over these people's eyes and you know it.

The first turns of a Civ3 game are very critical. Because of discussion and the President asking advice in the first t/c it will be far from a 30 minute chat. We're probably looking at getting a screenshot every turn and discussing it among the attendees. Ten turns will be plenty of action for the first chat. It will give ample ammunition for discussion in the forums. The second turn chat will be just as important. Forum input is necessary for a successful Demogame, I heard you say things like that on many occasions. But now you want to rip off the forum-users and put the entire scope of the game's begining in the hands of the chat attendees. That's madness. Put down that hash pipe, sir.

We need to keep bringing back the save to the forums for discussion on our potential moves and options. 10 turns is a great limit for this. It allows the Governor to get a discussion going about what to build based on what we find. Allowing the President to run helter-skelter through the game is not a good idea.

And you need to stop saying that you are in favor of a forum based game, as this quote clearly shows that you are not.

quoting Ravensfire:
...In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


I have to come back to this again. This is such slick politician talk, I can't let it go. You say:

Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

How can you call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit? There is no stated limit. If the Presedient says we're only going to go 25 turns this t/c, but decides to go 30, what? we're going to cry and say "hey he took more turns than he said he would." Then he gets a warning for breaking a Standard of the CoS? Meanwhile, 30 turns are burned, never to be seen again? That's rediculous. I doubt the President would be convicted anyway.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be.

Yes, we need to let the President determine how long the Turn Chat should be, up to 10 turns. No more. The citizens need to review his work and discuss their options.

CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


Do you realize how long this process would take at the begining of the game? We would immediately go into gridlock, becuase we'd have to have discussion and a poll for something that should be squared away now. I'm sure if you asked the citizens if they wanted the President to ignore the forum goers and just plow through the game at their discretion, they would object, and giving them the right to call for a poll is a backwards way of correcting the problem.

I can't believe you're actually backing this idea of screwing the forum-goers.

Originally posted by Cyc
I have to come back to this again. This is such slick politician talk, I can't let it go. You say:

Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

[quote]How can you call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit? There is no stated limit. If the Presedient says we're only going to go 25 turns this t/c, but decides to go 30, what? we're going to cry and say "hey he took more turns than he said he would." Then he gets a warning for breaking a Standard of the CoS? Meanwhile, 30 turns are burned, never to be seen again? That's rediculous. I doubt the President would be convicted anyway.


Excuse, but you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Limitations, as in a broader sense, ya know, the limits we have placed on various people to do their job? Such as scheduling a turn chat, voting on cash rushes, etc? Yeah, those. Limitations such as those are fixed and inviolate. Some I don't have a problem with, others I do. I respect and will defend them all.

Your example is a wonderful example of political spewing, Cyc. Let's see, does that really apply to just about every violation? Why yes, yes it does! Not to mention, given your example, I sincerely hope you reread the laws you have ratified. As a member of the Judiciary, I would expect you to have remembered that a save should have been posted every 5 turns. Gee, let's give him a warning - when you just declare the save to be used is from the 25th turn. Oh wait, that destroys that arguement. Sorry, Cyc. I'll not disturb the pink skies in your fantasy world again.

Rediculous (sic) indeed.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be.


CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


Do you realize how long this process would take at the begining of the game? We would immediately go into gridlock, becuase we'd have to have discussion and a poll for something that should be squared away now. I'm sure if you asked the citizens if they wanted the President to ignore the forum goers and just plow through the game at their discretion, they would object, and giving them the right to call for a poll is a backwards way of correcting the problem.


Oh, I'm sorry. We can't advocate such a system that already exists in law, because it's too slow? It's too slow? The People exercising a right is too slow? The People doing their job and monitoring their officials is too slow? The People complaining about a schedule that's (hopefully) been up for over a week is too slow?

Whoops, there goes most of the game then. No need for discussion, that would just slow things down. Polls - too slow! I understand now - just let the elected officials take care of everything and don't worry my pretty little head. Just wonder off to that RPG thread over there and amuse your self. Gotcha...


I can't believe you're actually backing this idea of screwing the forum-goers.

Oh give me a break - now who's spouting off political clap-trap. That's bunk, and you darn well know, Cyc.

Oh, wait. I understand. I have the gall to DEMAND that people get off their lazy tush, and actually examine the actions of their leaders and use the mechanisms we have in place to control them. How terrible of me! Why, we're supposed to have the inflexible limitations of the law on everything! People don't want to think for themselves after all, but let a select few control their thoughts and actions.

My fault, I'll start taking those pills again and return to the good little thrall I'm supposed to be.

Screwing the forum-goers. This is coming from a person demanding, requiring, the on-line chats that screw the forum goers. Sorry Cyc, my record is much stronger than yours about the rights of forum-goers. I get to hold you responsible for denying me the opportunity to run for President. For myself, and on the behalf of others in similar situations, I thank you!

For the last time, because I'm sick and tired of you and other continually failing to actually get my viewpoint right. I think it's because I'm actually giving people more rights, but you don't like that, so have to spin it.

I support the right of the President to determine how the game play sessions are held. Period. This introduces two things. First, the People ought to demand of their candidates more information - such as how to they plan to conduct their turn chats. Second, the People use the right documented above to force a vote on the issue.

Shock! Gasp! I want the right to choose! I want people who don't always have the time to run a chat to actually become President and play the save! Oh dear, that doesn't quite fit the evil, nasty Turn-Chats Are The Only Good mold, does it?

Bah - spin that how you want, you all do anyway. And you complain about me trying to politic and "sick politician talk". Need a mirror?

An absolutely disgusted
-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc


That's pure b/s Ravensfire, as is your claim of wanting this game to be forum based. You tell these citizen how much you favor control of the game to be forum based, then you want to railroad a rule through that allows the President to play as many turns as they damn well feel like, without any citizen input from the forums. What hogwash! You're pulling the wool over these people's eyes and you know it.

The first turns of a Civ3 game are very critical. Because of discussion and the President asking advice in the first t/c it will be far from a 30 minute chat. We're probably looking at getting a screenshot every turn and discussing it among the attendees. Ten turns will be plenty of action for the first chat. It will give ample ammunition for discussion in the forums. The second turn chat will be just as important. Forum input is necessary for a successful Demogame, I heard you say things like that on many occasions. But now you want to rip off the forum-users and put the entire scope of the game's begining in the hands of the chat attendees. That's madness. Put down that hash pipe, sir.

We need to keep bringing back the save to the forums for discussion on our potential moves and options. 10 turns is a great limit for this. It allows the Governor to get a discussion going about what to build based on what we find. Allowing the President to run helter-skelter through the game is not a good idea.

And you need to stop saying that you are in favor of a forum based game, as this quote clearly shows that you are not.

Cyc, were there a way to demand satisfaction from you I would. I could not be more deply offended, nor could you be more wrong.

You have just demostrated that you have no clue about what I stand for, my beliefs or my values.

You are not the person I thought you were.
-- Ravensfire

Whoa guys, this got out of hand way too fast. I'm not sure I want either of you to be CJ given this latest development. :eek:

There is a very good reason for wanting to have a soft limit on number of turns. What if we have 11 turns left on Iron Working? As Internal Affairs Minster, I expect to be able to say yes, go the extra turn so we can have meaningful discussion on where to settle, if we don't have iron already within our borders. With a hard 10 turn limit, I have to try to get the president to stop 1 turn into the next chat.

On the other hand, there is a huge body of practice (the entire SG forum for example) which shows that 10 turns is the generally accepted limit for advance planning. The very first set of turns is usually played at 20 turns.

How about this -- the guideline is 20 turns for the first chat, 10 thereafter. The president may exceed this limit by 20% by stating in advance of planning for that session, and there is a hard limit of 24 turns for the 1st chat, and 12 turns for subsequent chats.

To address the needs of the leaders, provide a way to instruct the DP to stop a chat early, if a defined event occurs. For example, we have IW due in 6 turns, I will be extremely upset if we don't stop at that point to examine the iron situation and end up wasting a settler on a bad placement.

Talk about slick (and I said slick, not sick you alarmist) political talk. I had to read through three quarters of your first post to find anything of substance! And your "Perilous Pauline" antics of "shock, I'm so wounded" doesn't rate many points either, Ravensfire.

You want to allow the DP to run away with the game with no accountability. Period. You claim that the DP has to post a save every 5 turns for the forum people to review, and THAT'S a safegaurd? You're the one on drugs, my friend. How often does a President read the forums while playing the save in the chat?

My reading comprehension skills? I explain to you in no uncertain terms how letting the President run away with the game for God knows how many turns with no accountability to the forums, and you still say your helping those people? Your only arguement about this is that my opinion about having t/c's is stopping you from becoming President? How selfish! Think of all the people that don;'t want to be President, who have to read about the last 30 turns that they had no say in.

Think about it Ravensfire. You want to rush through the begining of the game (the Democracy Game) making sure the citizens have no say in the playing of that game (other than looking at saves as they fly by). You do not want to help these people, you want to deny them the right to participate in the game the came to enjoy.

quoting DaveShack:
There is a very good reason for wanting to have a soft limit on number of turns. What if we have 11 turns left on Iron Working? As Internal Affairs Minster, I expect to be able to say yes, go the extra turn so we can have meaningful discussion on where to settle, if we don't have iron already within our borders. With a hard 10 turn limit, I have to try to get the president to stop 1 turn into the next chat.

On the other hand, there is a huge body of practice (the entire SG forum for example) which shows that 10 turns is the generally accepted limit for advance planning. The very first set of turns is usually played at 20 turns.

How about this -- the guideline is 20 turns for the first chat, 10 thereafter. The president may exceed this limit by 20% by stating in advance of planning for that session, and there is a hard limit of 24 turns for the 1st chat, and 12 turns for subsequent chats.

In your example, DS of 20 turns the first t/c and 10 thereafter, if we went straight for Iron Working, your proposed limits would probably mean the difference of getting I/W in the begining of the last week of the first Term or the end of the last week of the first Term. By then there are plenty of other quandries that could tie up the game, such as war, etc.

The first 10 turns of the game are very critical and need review by the citizens to determine our best course of action as a Nation. How about 10/15/15/10 thereon. That would give the first President 90 turns instead of the 80 turns that all the other Presidencies get. This would still allow the citizens to give input on the first ten turns, but allow the DP a little extra leeway in the second and third chat.

There can be extenuating circumstances that can be foreseen and discussed prior to the t/c's involved where a Technology might be available if we go an extra turn or two. That's not a problem with me. But having no limits on the amount of turns a DP can take is outrageous. The citizens need to be able to review the save and give input at short intervals. I don't see how we can rob them of this right.

Originally posted by Cyc

The first 10 turns of the game are very critical and need review by the citizens to determine our best course of action as a Nation.

Hmm, let's see if I got this straight. In 10 turns, we have at most 2 warriors, which are at most 5 and 2 tiles away from the start location, unless we're going to work a forest and slow growth to 20 turns. What can the people possibly have to discuss that early? :lol:

The above example is in terms of no shield bonus tiles, of course...:blush:

If there really is something, then I'm all for discussion, but I'd like to hear a specific example of something that can happen that early.

A Goodie Hut? A Barbarian Camp? Going South into the Jungle to see if there are more lux's there, North into the plains, or West into the desert to see how bountiful the flood plains will be? Should we talk to the English scout that just should up? How about the Iroquois scout? Should we accept the trade they offered? Do we want a Granary before we start on Settlers? Do we need a Barracks because our nieghbors are so close? Should we be roading and mining our land or just mining? Why aren't we roading? Why aren't we mining? Why is the Sci rate at 90% instead of 10%. What the heck is the Lux rate doing at 10%? What do you mean you changed production from this to that?

There are a lot of individual questions that MAY need to be addressed by the citizens. I can probably think of some more if you give me half a day.

Cyc and ravensfire. Calm down.

Originally posted by Cyc
A Goodie Hut? A Barbarian Camp? Going South into the Jungle to see if there are more lux's there, North into the plains, or West into the desert to see how bountiful the flood plains will be? Should we talk to the English scout that just should up? How about the Iroquois scout? Should we accept the trade they offered? Do we want a Granary before we start on Settlers? Do we need a Barracks because our nieghbors are so close? Should we be roading and mining our land or just mining? Why aren't we roading? Why aren't we mining? Why is the Sci rate at 90% instead of 10%. What the heck is the Lux rate doing at 10%? What do you mean you changed production from this to that?

I don't want to get into a toe to toe, but here are some friendly thoughts. :D

A Goodie Hut? Post an instruction to pop or not pop

A Barbarian Camp? Post an instruction to attack or not.

Going South into the Jungle to see if there are more lux's there, North into the plains, or West into the desert to see how bountiful the flood plains will be? We look at the start pos & discuss in advance.

Should we talk to the English scout that just should up? How about the Iroquois scout? Never heard of someone not talking to a new civ on sight.

Should we accept the trade they offered? Trade & tech can post conditional instructions, or DP can stop.

Do we want a Granary before we start on Settlers? Do we need a Barracks because our nieghbors are so close? Discuss after knowing the start pos. These will most likely need to be decided after the 20 turns anyway.

Should we be roading and mining our land or just mining? Why aren't we roading? Why aren't we mining? Why is the Sci rate at 90% instead of 10%. What the heck is the Lux rate doing at 10%? What do you mean you changed production from this to that? These would be citizen complaint issues, no mater how many turns pass. To avoid them we would have to play 1 turn at a time and take 3 years to finish.

Originally posted by DaveShack


I don't want to get into a toe to toe, but here are some friendly thoughts. :D

A Goodie Hut? Post an instruction to pop or not pop

A Barbarian Camp? Post an instruction to attack or not.

Going South into the Jungle to see if there are more lux's there, North into the plains, or West into the desert to see how bountiful the flood plains will be? We look at the start pos & discuss in advance.

Should we talk to the English scout that just should up? How about the Iroquois scout? Never heard of someone not talking to a new civ on sight.

Should we accept the trade they offered? Trade & tech can post conditional instructions, or DP can stop.

Do we want a Granary before we start on Settlers? Do we need a Barracks because our nieghbors are so close? Discuss after knowing the start pos. These will most likely need to be decided after the 20 turns anyway.

Should we be roading and mining our land or just mining? Why aren't we roading? Why aren't we mining? Why is the Sci rate at 90% instead of 10%. What the heck is the Lux rate doing at 10%? What do you mean you changed production from this to that? These would be citizen complaint issues, no mater how many turns pass. To avoid them we would have to play 1 turn at a time and take 3 years to finish.

I disagree. These are legit concerns that need to be checked before the game goes too far. The amount of visable land will have changed dramatically after 10 turns and new options will be available because of the new knowledge. This new knowledge needs to be shared with the citizens so they can properly address it through discussion.

I think that it may be a good idea to establish a recommended maximum turnchat length of 10 turns, and an absolute maximum that a turnchat can last at 15 turns. This gives the President some leeway in the event that a longer turnchat would be necessary, and a responsible President would hopefully keep most chats to 10 turns.

How about a poll on the issue:

How many turns should the initial game play session be scheduled for?

10
15
20
25
30

This is a cumulative poll. The smallest value for which itself and all smaller numbers receives a majority of votes cast will be used for the initial chat.

For the law here is a proposal. As usual, this is not stated in legaleze, I will leave that to more qualified people:

The standard number of turns to play per session is 10. This may be exceeded by up to 50% (a maximum of 15) if the game situation warrants such an extension, and the extension is requested via a valid instruction. [for example, continue until mathematics is researched (12 turns) and then stop as soon as it is possible to save the game] An instruction may specify that fewer than the standard number of turns may be played. A vote of the citizens may increase or decrease the number of turns to be played for any given session.

From my perspective, some of the best discussion and friendly debate I have ever seen in this game, is in the VERY beginning. The city placement maps, the expansion plans, etc... That is the heart of the democracy game.

Once we get to guns and horsies, lets face it, our path is pretty much decided, and the discussions are more academic, compared to early on, where our decisions have massive impact for thousands of years down the road.

I would not want to see the chance for those discussions short circuited compared to the desire to have a long turn chat.

I say a maximum of 10 turns. On the other hand, the DP, and ONLY the DP, should ever be allowed to end a chat early, and they should not be subject to the whims of a spot vote.

I was CJ during perhaps the most tumultuous time in DG history... yes, even worse than DG3, and I can tell you these rules are battle tested to be good solutions.

My apologies eyrei. Certain buttons got pushed and I responded. I'm staying out of this one - I'm still in a foul mood over it.

-- Ravensfire

So now we're just going to waffle on this until mid Term. Unbelieveable. OK. I'll write up the Standard. This needs to be done immediately.

This is the prior proposal with the addition of the restriction of 10 turns maximum per Turn Chat.

After discussion here in this thread and discussion in the chat, I see more people in favor of 10 turns per chat than allowing it to go unrestricted. In my opinion, allowing more than 10 turns per chat would be the same as leaving it unrestricted. Therefore I have added this to the end of D.


D. Turn Chat Procedures
1. The Designated Player (see Chain of Command) should be in the chat room at
least 10 minutes before the scheduled time and begin play at the specified
start time. The Designated Player may conduct any prepatory activities
that can be immediately undone without reloading the save, at any time
prior to the start of the turn chat, even offline.
a. The primary chat room shall be #Turnchat on irc.irc-chat.net.
2. If the Designated Player has not shown up 10 minutes after the scheduled
start of the turn chat, a new Designated Player shall be chosen from the
officials present following the Chain of Command. If none are present, then
the Chat is cancelled.
3. The Designated Player shall upload a save of the game after turn 0, every 5
turns after that, and a final save at the conclusion of the chat.
4. If the Designated Player voluntarily relinquishes control, they shall post a
current save of the game in the TCIT. The next person in the COC attending
the chat shall download this save and resume playing the game with that save.
5. If the Designated Player disappears and has not reappeared within 10 minutes,
the next person attending the chat on the COC shall become the Designated
Player using the most recently uploaded save game.
6. If a game has to be used that is not current, then the moves from the chat log
must be duplicated.
7. Once a player has started playing the save, they are the Designated Player for
that turn chat and shall not be required to relinquish play to a late
arriving/returning, but higher ranked official.
8. The maximum number of turns to be played per Turn Chat will be 10.
a. A valid and binding Forum Poll may extend the number of turns to be
played, on a per-chat basis
b. Under extenuating circumstances the chat may be extended by the DP for up to
3 turns. No other approval is need for the DP to extend the Turn Chat if the
allowable conditions are met. The
reasons a chat may be extended are:
* to allow research to complete so that next options can be discussed
* to allow a specific wonder or production to complete, so its affects can be
determined
* to complete a military action, so that peace terms can be discussed, or
follow on action planned
* to allow a period of anarchy to complete, so the government change can be
assessed


E. Turn Chat Rules
1. Only citizens of the Democracy game shall be voiced.
2. Citizens are encouraged to provide constructive advice & positively contribute
to the chat.
3. Spaming, lobbying, repetitive questions and any other unnecessary traffic in the
chat is forbidden.
4. Clones are not allowed!
5. Violations of the chat rules shall result in the offender being de-voiced.
6. The chat operators hold the right to de-voice all non-officials if the chat gets too
confusing or is disturbed by someone permanently. The Designated Player
makes this decision.
7. De-voicing actions shall be investigated by the Judiciary.
8. During turn chats, #Demogame is still open for totally free discussions.
Departments or special interest groups can also open private discussion rooms.
9. The Designated Player retains the right to end the chat turn at their discretion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

I say a maximum of 10 turns. On the other hand, the DP, and ONLY the DP, should ever be allowed to end a chat early, and they should not be subject to the whims of a spot vote.


Hi Bill,

Spot vote == 4 letter words... We're not having them. :)

However, I do support "stop if/when x happens" instructions, especially when backed by a forum poll.

Originally posted by Cyc
This is the prior proposal with the addition of the restriction of 10 turns maximum per Turn Chat.


I'm ok with this if a forum vote is allowed to extend it on a per-chat basis, and if going over for the special circumstances I noted above (resource visibility, trade opportunity, wonder completion to name some) is allowed. I will drop the 20 turn initial chat -- and gloat when nothing substantial needs deciding... :)

I think 50% is too much, DS. Let's make it a 30% possible extension if a Technology can be achieved in those 3 turns. Within this 30% allowance what other reasons would you want to allow the extension?

Suggested additions:


cross-posted with Cyc. I'm flexible on the number of turns it can be extended.
I also realized on reading my code back that it is not clear what the difference is between D.8.a and D.8.b. D.8.a is a citizen vote to extend the chat, for any reason at all. D.8.b allows the DP to extend it for these reasons only.

D. Turn Chat Procedures
8. The maximum number of turns to be played per Turn Chat will be 10.
a. A citizen poll may extend the number of turns to be played, on a
per-chat basis
b. Under extenuating circumstances the chat may be extended by the DP for up to 3 turms. The
reasons a chat may be extended are:
* to allow research to complete so that next options can be discussed
* to allow a specific wonder or production to complete, so its affects can be determined
* to complete a military action, so that peace terms can be discussed, or followon action planned
* to allow a period of anarchy to complete, so the government change can be assessed

Originally posted by Cyc
I think 50% is too much, DS. Let's make it a 30% possible extension if a Technology can be achieved in those 3 turns. Within this 30% allowance what other reasons would you want to allow the extension?

I posted a proposed addition to the code at the same time as your question, and then edited the post to say I'm flexible on the amount of extension to be granted, 3 turns might do. In my proposed amendment a citizen vote can extend it as well, and these things are known in advance anyway, for the most part.

Works for me as long as the citizen's vote to extend the chat past 10 turns is a justifiable reason. I'll add you addition with 3 turns (instead of 5). Very good work.

This is in response to the proposals posted by Cyc and DaveShack.

Section D.1 - Do the prepatory activities need to take place during the chat (including the 10 minutes prior to start time) or do you mean that they can be done off-line?

Section D.2 - What happens if after 10 minutes the DP has not shown and there is nobody present from the CoC? Is the chat cancelled or does it wait indefinetely for someone on the CoC to show up?

Section D.8.a - do you mean "citizen poll" in a generic way or are you specifying a specific type of poll found in CoS Section F (Poll Procedures)? Do we want to specify that this section applies per Congressional votes? And how many turns can the chat be extended for? Your wording seems to say indefinetely.

Section D8.b - Who decides to extend the chat?

@ zorven

D.1 states that the prepatory activities allowable may be done anytime before the Turn Chat starts. It doesn't say they have to be. Yes, this means they can be done off-line if they fall within the allowable parameters.

D.2 The Turn Chat is cancelled.

D.8.a I believe DS wants a poll by ant citizen allowed, and yes, this would be a Standard Forum Poll (valid and binding).

D.8.b The DP may extend the chat if the allowable conditions are met. No one hhas to officially approve it. If the DP extends the Chat without the allowable conditions met, they are likely to recieve a PI.

Cyc,

Thanks for answering. Since those points were not clear to me when I read the text, perhaps the text should be more explicit in these areas.

I previously noticed the problem with D.8.b and edited it to clarify that the DP can decide to extend the play session under these circumstance. How does D.8.a need to be written to make it clear? Not sure if you're even saying it needs to change...

I also thought of something else -- still think the citizens and/or leaders need a way to issue a "stop if/when x happens" instruction. Is that covered somewhere else, or does it belong here?

DaveShack,

D8.a - you might want to reword it to the effect that any citizen can initiate a Forum Poll (per CoS section F) to extend a specified chat session by up to X turns.

@ zorven - Done, although D.1 takes care of your concern already.

DS - an entire discussion needs to be held to come up with any and all "Stop at X" contingencies. This legislation can be passed now ans those "X's" can be added later after discussion has been done.

Cyc,

My concern with D1 is that it starts out discussing the actual chat and ends with discussing prepatory actions. I then read the prepatory actions text within the context of the actual chat. Therefore I assumed that the prepatory actions were to be done during a chat. I still think that we should take this opportunity to be very clear. Perhaps the text on prepatory actions should be broken out into Section 9 and state that they can be done off-line.

Originally posted by zorven
Cyc,

My concern with D1 is that it starts out discussing the actual chat and ends with discussing prepatory actions. I then read the prepatory actions text within the context of the actual chat. Therefore I assumed that the prepatory actions were to be done during a chat. I still think that we should take this opportunity to be very clear. Perhaps the text on prepatory actions should be broken out into Section 9 and state that they can be done off-line.

zorven, I have read D.1 over and over. This is legislation written by Ravensfire and I find no problem with it. Prepatory actions are items such as build queues that can be done as prep work for the Turn Chat. Therefore these actions should go in the clause talking about the start of the Turn Chat. Because this blurb about prepatory actions sates that it can be done "anytime prior to the Turn Chat, it of course includes any offline time prior to the Turn Chat. Therefore I see no reason to change the wording any more than it has to be.

Cyc,

I guess my interpretation comes from the fact that the DP has to be in the chat before the start of the chat and that prep actions can take place before the start of the chat. I read "start" as the scheduled start time. Therefore I could interpret that prep actions need to take place in the chat between the times the DP shows up and the start of the chat.

Why can't we be explicit and add "off-line"?

Done, zorven.

So, as the conversation has died down here, I believe we're finished and everyone is happy (except for DaveShack's "X" factors, which can be added later). I will post a poll tomorrow with the proposal on the previous page, if there are no more directives.

POLL HAS BEEN POSTED! PLEASE VOTE! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=74099)