Quite a simple poll, actually, and just an informational one, nothing to finalize here. Can the will of those at the chat be considered to be the Will of the People when those at the forum cannot be asked for input? I would not like any special scenarios or talk about how the forum could always show Will of the People before the turnchat.

I beleve that the people of the chat can and will be the will of the people. As long as they are registered citizens in the demogame then they [the chatters in #turnchat] can be the will of the people.

I beleve that the people of the chat can and will be the will of the people. As long as they are registered citizens in the demogame then they [the chatters in #turnchat] can be the will of the people.

<sarcasm> Of course! They completely represent the entire viewpoint of everyone, we've got complete ability to ensure that only registered citizens attend the chat, and those lazy idiots at work or asleep due to time differences can just shut their whining hole!</sarcasm>

Oh yes, it's so wonderful to allow a small minority to chart the course of the nation without bothering us peons. You wouldn't want us to worry our pretty little heads, do you? Your concern for us is touching.

-- Ravensfire

No, however, the DP can use such polls to better formulate his own decision, and even if he wishes base his actions on the poll. However it's the DP's perogative how to act upon it, just as it's the DP's perogative to ask for a vote in the first place.

RF, you seem to have missed the point of this poll. The question being asked is if the Will of the People can be the will of those at the chat in some instances, but only some.

RF, you seem to have missed the point of this poll. The question being asked is if the Will of the People can be the will of those at the chat in some instances, but only some.

No, no I didn't miss the point. You want to allow the will of a small minority of the people to serve as the will of the whole.

I don't.

Any questions?

-- Ravensfire

I think that the Will of the People can be expressed in a chat room, and that the opinion formulated in the said chatroom is as valid as any opinion posted in the forums.

I believe we should give the right, no, the obligation, for the duty player, to spot vote the will of the people when there is some unpredicted event happening during a TC. By the way, such spot votes should be subject to legal restrictions, such as the right to abstain and a reasonable quorum, to make it as valid and meaningful as a normal time vote in the forums.

It is surely better to keep everything possible in the forums, but we never know what might happen. Give the duty player the obligation to poll the will of the people so that he can better fullfill his duty.

RF, you seem to have missed the point of this poll. The question being asked is if the Will of the People can be the will of those at the chat in some instances, but only some.

I think the point of this poll is abvious. It is an attempt to ratify the idea that changes to posted instructions can be made during the chat. To this idea I say: :nono:

I think that the Will of the People can be expressed in a chat room, and that the opinion formulated in the said chatroom is as valid as any opinion posted in the forums.

I believe we should give the right, no, the obligation, for the duty player, to spot vote the will of the people when there is some unpredicted event happening during a TC. By the way, such spot votes should be subject to legal restrictions, such as the right to abstain and a reasonable quorum, to make it as valid and meaningful as a normal time vote in the forums.

It is surely better to keep everything possible in the forums, but we never know what might happen. Give the duty player the obligation to poll the will of the people so that he can better fullfill his duty.

Please read up on PI#6 from DG1.

We should learn to live with little mistakes in posted instructions and have faith that when something truly unexpected happens our duly elected President will have the wisdom to know whether or not game play should be stopped or not, and the courage to follw his (or her) wisdom.

Please read up on PI#6 from DG1.

We should learn to live with little mistakes in posted instructions and have faith that when something truly unexpected happens our duly elected President will have the wisdom to know whether or not game play should be stopped or not, and the courage to follw his (or her) wisdom.


DG1? That is no longer jurisprudence, Donsig. We'll have a different constitution, a different lawset, and thus, the DG1 PI doesn't mean nothing anymore.

But this does not mean that we must forget our past. We must learn from it, but we don't have to live it a second time.

(edit: and, by the way, I wasn't aware of such a debate in DG1, as I joined the game in DG2, T2)

There should be no (read: no) method of overruling an instruction posted by an elected official in the turn chat.

Beware of extremist positions -- I'm always bothered by them, and never want to see them prevail. :crazyeye:

Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?

Where does it end? Do we set the limit at 48 hours, or 7 days?

Does it matter what kind of decision it is? Does it matter what the margin of victory is?

What about a poll in which 51% of the census votes, but 100% of those voting choose a particular option -- is that more or less valid than a poll in which 100% of the people vote and the margin of victory is one vote? Which is a stronger statement about the will of the people?

BTW, what do you call an extreme anti-extremist position? :lol:

In the event that the will of the people is not determined in the forums, it must have the ability for it to be determined in the TC's

In the event that the will of the people is not determined in the forums, it must have the ability for it to be determined in the TC's
If this is the case, the leader has not done his/her job and should be punished.

My response to the poll is due to the fact that the question only asked if the possiblity was possible, not whether the will of the people is usually represented in the chat, or whether it should be assumed so. It is possible that the people in the chat have wills that represent the will of the people; it is possible that they do not. It should not be assumed that the will of those at the chat is the same as the will of the people. The people at the chat are a subset of the citizenry who actually have time to attend the chat or at least part of it. That could infer many things, but I don't feel like analyzing the possible effects on the will of those people and how those effects could be based on the causes that enable or encourage people to attend the chat. I know I wouldn't want to have my opinion ignored if major (I would not mind minor actions to be done without my opinion, but what represents minor, and why wouldn't the DP be able to make such decisions by himself or herself? A question I don't feel like answering) decisions were made without the possiblity of my opinion being inputted (beyond some unique circumstances where the vast majority of the people were able to input their inputs, but I for some reason was unable to). If this has influenced your opinion in this matter, there's probably something wrong with you. ;)

Beware of extremist positions -- I'm always bothered by them, and never want to see them prevail. :crazyeye:

Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?

Where does it end? Do we set the limit at 48 hours, or 7 days?

Does it matter what kind of decision it is? Does it matter what the margin of victory is?

What about a poll in which 51% of the census votes, but 100% of those voting choose a particular option -- is that more or less valid than a poll in which 100% of the people vote and the margin of victory is one vote? Which is a stronger statement about the will of the people?

BTW, what do you call an extreme anti-extremist position? :lol:

And yet you would allow a bare handful of people that happen to be able to attend the chat to overrule the citizens? A bare handful to determine when an instruction isn't wise? A bare handful to override the desires of an elected official, supported by the will of the people?

And THAT is what some of you want to call a Democracy game?

I have no trouble, NONE, with the DP seeking advice from those at the chat for scenarios where the instructions are not clear.

As donsig has pointed out, and drove me from the game in disgust in DG4, there is a desire to play "the perfect game". At Monarch level? When we have highly talented players? What - we can't recover from a few mistakes? Oh my goodness, how I have overestimated our abilities.

Keep the game, and the discussions from it, in the forums, not in the isolated, barely populated world of the turn chat.

-- Ravensfire

I think the point of this poll is abvious. It is an attempt to ratify the idea that changes to posted instructions can be made during the chat. To this idea I say: :nono:

donsig: would it be okay for the leaders who posted the instructions to change them mid-chat?

And yet you would allow a bare handful of people that happen to be able to attend the chat to overrule the citizens? A bare handful to determine when an instruction isn't wise? A bare handful to override the desires of an elected official, supported by the will of the people?


No, I'm as much against the extreme of allowing everything to be changed as I am against the extreme of allowing nothing to be changed. Look more closely at my post and focus on those specific example circumstances.

In the case of existing instructions, where there was citizen input, I want a "bare handful" to be able to ask for a decision to be discussed in the forum by everyone by forcing play to stop, nothing more. I'm even willing to limit that to cases where conditions at the time are different than conditions at the time the forum decision was made.

Give the chat some power, no matter how small, and we'll encourage a lot of people to stay in the game, or even become more active.

I agree with Daveshack, Give the chat at least some power. At least it will encurage people to stay in the game or better yet. Become more interested and become more active.

DG1? That is no longer jurisprudence, Donsig. We'll have a different constitution, a different lawset, and thus, the DG1 PI doesn't mean nothing anymore.

But this does not mean that we must forget our past. We must learn from it, but we don't have to live it a second time.

(edit: and, by the way, I wasn't aware of such a debate in DG1, as I joined the game in DG2, T2)

The constitution we now have evolved from the debates surrounding PI#6 and the veto that was exercised prior to that PI. Way back then we started nailing down general principles we wanted in the demogame and placing those in our constitution. PI#6 is relevant to this discussion. The DP called a spot vote to decide whether to continue play or not. Those at the chat wanted to continue. The DP stopped play anyway. Yes, calling such a spot vote was stupid but it just goes to show the kinds of problems we will encounter once we give those at the chat power. And we are doing nothing short of giving them power if we declare that the will of the chat is the will of the people, even if only in certain cases.

Let's put this idea down, back away and move on to better things.

donsig: would it be okay for the leaders who posted the instructions to change them mid-chat?

As far as I'm concerned, no. The trouble with this plan is that it allows leaders to be lazy about what they post for instructions, since they could *fix* them later. If it is truly a big important thing then the leader should get it right the first time. If it's not a big thing then why bother changing it? If it's an unexpected thing (and big) the then DP should have sence enough to stop play.

In the event that the will of the people is not determined in the forums, it must have the ability for it to be determined in the TC's

The ability is there. We allow the DP to make any decisions that are not made in the posted game play instructions.

Beware of extremist positions -- I'm always bothered by them, and never want to see them prevail. :crazyeye:

Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?

Where does it all end?

Well, DaveShack, why are we in such a rush that we have to have only a 24 hours poll? If it's a big enough decision why can't we give the poll a decent amount of time to run so we can hear from the most people?

... why are we in such a rush that we have to have only a 24 hours poll? If it's a big enough decision why can't we give the poll a decent amount of time to run so we can hear from the most people?

No argument there -- I'd like to see the entire session cancelled if discussion between play sessions takes so long that there isn't time for a decent poll. Why do you think I'm saying one of the chat powers should be to stop play if there are no instructions?

We allow the DP to make any decisions that are not made in the posted game play instructions.

So it's better to have one person decide (the DP) than it is to have many people decide (the chat attendees)? How is it more democratic to have one person choose than it is to have many people choose? Sure, you'll say that people voted for the DP, but do we really vote for the science and culture leaders with the expectation that they'll actually be DP? No, we choose the President based on that expectation and the other offices are normally filled by people who are both lucky to have time and willing to accept the nomination. Not to mention the high number of uncontested elections and appointments, meaning that many people eligible to be DP are not elected.

Now, let's try to help with the real problem. What follows is not judgemental, I'm just rephrasing what I think I've heard, in order to try to get us beyond this disagreement.

So if I'm reading recent posts right (I don't do archives :) )you've had a bad experience with a spot vote, and you quelled any possibility of another bad experience by essentially ignoring the chat when you were elected President in a later game, thereby igniting all this controversy. Again to repeat, no blame needs to be assigned here, this is just a statement of facts.

I don't have any problem with you not wanting input from the people during the chat, if you happen to be playing. What I do have a problem with is imposing that reaction on everyone else.

How about this for a compromise rule which accomodates the desires of some for there to be no binding advice in turn chats, while also accomodating the desires of others for such advice to be legal:


During nominations each term, all candidates for President must state their position on whether they will follow binding advice from the citizens given during chats. Such advice must follow the procedures and be subject to limitations as provided by lower forms of law, if any.
The President must include in each TCIT and announce at each chat whether advice given during that term will be binding (the President / DP must follow it) or not, according to the statement made in the nominations thread on this subject.


I'm willing to try a bit longer to find middle ground, and then we'll just have to start voting on proposed laws and see what the people decide.

Actually while I was re-reading this to check spelling and grammar, another idea comes to mind:


Three days prior to the start of nominations each term, the Chief Justice will post a poll of the form "Shall instructions from leaders and the results of spot votes during turn chats be binding during term xx? Yes / No / Abstain", with the ending date for the poll occurring at least two days before nominations close for the term.
The results of the poll on in-chat instructions shall become the law for the duration of the term to which it applies. If the result of the poll is "yes" then instructions given by leaders and results of spot polls during chats are binding on all DP's during that term, within the procedures and limitations provided by law.

So it's better to have one person decide (the DP) than it is to have many people decide (the chat attendees)? How is it more democratic to have one person choose than it is to have many people choose?

Sorry DS, I didn't read your whole post. Answering this question seems sufficient. YES it is better to let one person decide when that person is the duly elected President / DP. The President is elected by everyone, chat attendees and non-attendees and it is his or her job to represent us ALL. Even though I may not have voted for the President he (or she) is still the President and I would stand behind him (or her) so long as he (or she) is not violating our constitution or breaking our laws. That's how democracy works.

If we allow those who happen to be at the chat to make decisions then just who is representing me when I'm not at the chat? How is my voice to be heard? DO we all need to appoint chat reps and instill them with our proxies when it comes time to decide something in the chat? :crazyeye:

Well, with 14 out of 22 votes saying that yes, the will of those at the chat can be the Will of the People in some special situations, we need to decide what those situations would be. My idea of such a situation is when the Will of the People was not previously decided in the forums, and it cannot be determined before it needs to be acted upon. (i.e. if a civ suddenly demands something "out of the blue" and it was not planned for by FA)

If we allow those who happen to be at the chat to make decisions then just who is representing me when I'm not at the chat? How is my voice to be heard?

We're talking about limited powers, not absolute powers. If you wanted to have your voice heard on a subject, and did speak, then there was citizen input and the instruction does not meet the proposed criteria (no citizen input) so it would not be subject to a chat decision.

Stated differently, the whole point is that either the people did not make their voices heard (one of the reasons to allow chat instructions) or circumstances have changed such that more forum discussion is necessary (the power to stop play). On the one hand, hypothetically you've already spoken by not speaking on the topic. On the other hand, the action is intended to let you speak. Don't see a conflict here, however I'm driven by thoughts not feelings and I already said I'll concede the point that if you are driven by feelings, your opinion is valid.

We're talking about limited powers, not absolute powers. If you wanted to have your voice heard on a subject, and did speak, then there was citizen input and the instruction does not meet the proposed criteria (no citizen input) so it would not be subject to a chat decision.

Giving those at the chat even limitied powers puts us on the proverbial slippery slope leading to the erosion of the rights of those who do not attend the chats. Even giving those at the chat the simple power to halt play is a dangerous thing. It gives those at the chat tremendous power to sway decisions that the DP should be allowed to make unhindered. If the DP does something unpopular with those at the chat then the chat goers could band together and call for a halt in play just as a delaying tactic.

Can we not place our trust in the person we elect to play the save?

Well, with 14 out of 22 votes saying that yes, the will of those at the chat can be the Will of the People in some special situations, we need to decide what those situations would be. My idea of such a situation is when the Will of the People was not previously decided in the forums, and it cannot be determined before it needs to be acted upon. (i.e. if a civ suddenly demands something "out of the blue" and it was not planned for by FA)

Well then, how would we go about deciding if the *will of the people* has or has not been decided in the forums? I seem to recall a situation where a Civ made a demand out of the blue :rolleyes: , the DP replied based on forum posts and all hell broke loose because those at the chat didn't like it. What if those at the chat decide they don't like something and say the instruction or poll backing it are not valid, therefore they (the chat goers) can form the *will of the people* on the issue since there was technically no forum decision made? You're opening a Pandora's Box. Someone at the chat will have to decide if a forum decision was made. If we let that someone be the chatgoers then we're giving them a blank check to invalidate whatever they want to. We could let the DP be that someone but if we're going to trust him or her to make such a decision why don't we just trust him or her to do the right thing and stop play if the situation warrants it?

The ability is there. We allow the DP to make any decisions that are not made in the posted game play instructions.

Sorry donsig, I will have none of any form of Authoritarianism in this democracy Game. If there are missing or incorrect instructions, It shouldbe up to the people in the TC to decide what action should be taken as the other instructions are invalid. There needs to be a vote on what to do, rather than having the DP get far more power as there will be many incomplete instructions. The only reason invalid instructions should be decided by 1 person is if the minister, official, or deputy of that area where there are invalid instructions is at the TC, and can make the appopriate corrections.

what a ridiculous statement sarevok, an elected official who can be impeached, moderated is dictatorial? Comparative then the chatroom is to an aristocracy, or plutocracy, concentration of power into few hands, allbeit UNELECTED!

having the people in the chatroom decide is MUCH more democratic than having the dp decide.... What if the dp went all the way down the list and the minister it landed on won in the election jus because no one else ran against them

this would make turnchats a bit more exciting and persuade ppl to go, because if you arent minister: Why go to the chat?

P.S. I know donsig is gonna get mad at this statement cause ppl going to the chat get to decide stuff

I don't get mad. :)

It's not a matter of persuading people to go to the chats. We can't all go to the chats all of the time. And ministers are included in this *we*. And all this worry about the Chain of Command resulting in somene unelected playing the save is moot. We allow the President to set the chat times at his or her convenience. The CoC should kick in only on rare occasions when the president is unexpectedly unavailable. We decided long ago to allow the President to set chat times so we would not exclude people like Grey Fox or Shaitan from holding the highest office since they fell in the category of those who cannot attend chats when the bulk of the demogame players can.

If we allow changes at the chats then we put pressure on leaders to attend the chats to defend their instructions. This may well result in very good people deciding not to be leaders because they can't be at the chats. We've been through these arguements before, it's the same old crap.

We elect a president to play the save let him do it. If something truly BIG is not covered in the instructions let us have faith that the president we chose will do the right thing. If something SMALL isn't covered let the President do his job and play the darn game.

I fully understand donsigs (and others) problems with letting people at the chat be the will of the people. I myself have had many chats were I was unable to participate because of the time the chat was held.

And I guess donsig got a point that the President should know what to do and when to stop the chat.

Still, being at the turnchats is very often a good addition to the demogame, and participating in them increases the fun one get from the demogame.

If the people at the chats will have no power what so ever to do anything there, there will be no point in showing up. And even more, forbidding people other than the DP to make decisions during the turnchats could raise a problem. Ok, so we can forbid spot-votes and the like. But what about when a citisen influences and talks the DP into doing certain things? This would mean that some people had more power during the turnchat than they should have, and I guess this could lead to some more PI's. What would we do about that? Deny participants to talk?

If participants in a turnchat have no power, there is no point in having turnchats IMHO. Just let the DP play the game and post a summary on the forum.

But what about when a citisen influences and talks the DP into doing certain things? The very thing myself and donsig are adamently against. If the pres has a small decision to make and he wants to see if the citizenry agree with him/her, fine whatever, couldnt care less. It is when those spot polls at the chat change posted instructions or are deemed as binding when my objection comes in.

they should not be binding in my opinion.

I fully understand donsigs (and others) problems with letting people at the chat be the will of the people. I myself have had many chats were I was unable to participate because of the time the chat was held.

And I guess donsig got a point that the President should know what to do and when to stop the chat.

Still, being at the turnchats is very often a good addition to the demogame, and participating in them increases the fun one get from the demogame.

If the people at the chats will have no power what so ever to do anything there, there will be no point in showing up. And even more, forbidding people other than the DP to make decisions during the turnchats could raise a problem. Ok, so we can forbid spot-votes and the like. But what about when a citisen influences and talks the DP into doing certain things? This would mean that some people had more power during the turnchat than they should have, and I guess this could lead to some more PI's. What would we do about that? Deny participants to talk?

If participants in a turnchat have no power, there is no point in having turnchats IMHO. Just let the DP play the game and post a summary on the forum.
Which is my point exactly, democracy is better than the DP effectively gaining absolute power. They already have the ability to change build queues at will as they have absolute control of what really happens in the game.

I don't get mad. :)

It's not a matter of persuading people to go to the chats. We can't all go to the chats all of the time. And ministers are included in this *we*. And all this worry about the Chain of Command resulting in somene unelected playing the save is moot. We allow the President to set the chat times at his or her convenience. The CoC should kick in only on rare occasions when the president is unexpectedly unavailable. We decided long ago to allow the President to set chat times so we would not exclude people like Grey Fox or Shaitan from holding the highest office since they fell in the category of those who cannot attend chats when the bulk of the demogame players can.

If we allow changes at the chats then we put pressure on leaders to attend the chats to defend their instructions. This may well result in very good people deciding not to be leaders because they can't be at the chats. We've been through these arguements before, it's the same old crap.

We elect a president to play the save let him do it. If something truly BIG is not covered in the instructions let us have faith that the president we chose will do the right thing. If something SMALL isn't covered let the President do his job and play the darn game.
you are effectively saying that if instructions can be changed at the chat, then the leaders will have to show up to defend what they put up. May I reemind you that this poll is for:

In the event that a minister or official does not give instructions, and they or their deputy are not there to give advice on what is to be done, then there will be a vote on what the instruction shall be.

The only time when instructions should have the ability to be changed is if we are in a state of emergency and the nation itself is threatened and a official is not making things that are absolutely essential. Then is the only time instructions can be altered. If we are at war and losing or out of troops, there should be a vote saying if we should change instructions made by an official who made temples in all of his cities to make soldiers to fight. I would not want any changes made to instructions without a very justifiable cause.

what a ridiculous statement sarevok, an elected official who can be impeached, moderated is dictatorial? Comparative then the chatroom is to an aristocracy, or plutocracy, concentration of power into few hands, allbeit UNELECTED!
That statement shows your intelligence. Tell me whats more democratic?

In the event that the will of the people is not decided in the forums, the will of the people become is the TC:

1. A combined vote of the people in the TC

2. The DP themselves

Obviously, #1 is more democratic. I will hear nothing of "aristocracy" here as if the decision was not decided in the forums when it was the people's job, then it must be decided when it is time for such actions.

Don't mock my intellegence you child, or at least learn proper grammar and spelling first.

If will is not found in the forum, the leader has failed to accomplish the tasks he was elected for. Putting aside the problems that creates for a moment to now to refer to the Turn Chat statement.

Your proposal to make the TC the automatic will of the people in the event that any unplanned action occurs, gives far too much power to an unelected few. These people are lucky enough to either not be working during the turnchats or students come September. While yes, they are citizens, who can vote on actions, they have far reaching authority over the DP should they attempt to exercise it, over the leaders, who are acting in the true will of the citizenry, and over forum members like myself who cannot attend chat sessions. TC'ers have unequal powers as forum citizens do in any situation that should ever come up not agreed upon in the forum, and those actions are rather common.
If a leader disregards the will of the citizenry he can be impeached or punished, if the TC citizens wants to do the same, it can hide behind a cloak of authority merely because it has the privledge of being in the turn chat.
This also could hurt participation, as new members see that unless they attend the chat, they lose out on making decisions, is this acting in the best interests of the citizens?

Don't mock my intellegence you child, or at least learn proper grammar and spelling first.

If will is not found in the forum, the leader has failed to accomplish the tasks he was elected for. Putting aside the problems that creates for a moment to now to refer to the Turn Chat statement.

Your proposal to make the TC the automatic will of the people in the event that any unplanned action occurs, gives far too much power to an unelected few. These people are lucky enough to either not be working during the turnchats or students come September. While yes, they are citizens, who can vote on actions, they have far reaching authority over the DP should they attempt to exercise it, over the leaders, who are acting in the true will of the citizenry, and over forum members like myself who cannot attend chat sessions. TC'ers have unequal powers as forum citizens do in any situation that should ever come up not agreed upon in the forum, and those actions are rather common.
If a leader disregards the will of the citizenry he can be impeached or punished, if the TC citizens wants to do the same, it can hide behind a cloak of authority merely because it has the privledge of being in the turn chat.
This also could hurt participation, as new members see that unless they attend the chat, they lose out on making decisions, is this acting in the best interests of the citizens?
Watch it, or your head shall roll...

Well then do that instead of arguing here! Your problem has nothing to do with votes in the TC. Shouldnt it be obvious that if a leader makes no effort to get the will of the people, thats an option for a CC. This already existed, but nobody did it. In other words, what you want exists, but noone is using it.

Why nobody is using it ill leave to another discussion (no need to rant about judicial crap :rant: ) but it is clear that few will take action. So do not come here and argue that this is a bad idea rather than from the outset stating the main problem. There could be a discussion about it, and a solution found while still having votes in the TC in those cases. I thought someone of your "superior intellect to a foolish child" :rolleyes: could have done that from the start rather than picking fights.

I think giving power to the attendees of the turn chat gives those individuals greater power than a citizen unable to attend, plus it will surely put an end to the forums as the driver of the game.

The President is not a dictator. He or she is the single, only, one, the chosen, person who has received a majority of votes from the entire citizenry, and as such as much more of a mandate of the will of the people than an assembled group of folks who happen to show up at the chat.

If we citizens don't like giving the President that power, then stop making elections about popularity, and start making them about what the candidate says they intend to do.

I think giving power to the attendees of the turn chat gives those individuals greater power than a citizen unable to attend, plus it will surely put an end to the forums as the driver of the game.

The President is not a dictator. He or she is the single, only, one, the chosen, person who has received a majority of votes from the entire citizenry, and as such as much more of a mandate of the will of the people than an assembled group of folks who happen to show up at the chat.

If we citizens don't like giving the President that power, then stop making elections about popularity, and start making them about what the candidate says they intend to do.
This poll is misunderstood.

The question is: In the event that citizen majority is not made on an issue to find the will of the people, then the people at the TC will vote to see if an instruction or plan is.

The interpretation: The People in the TC becomes the will of the people in all issues, effectively making an aristocracy of the DG

everyone arguing against this needs to stop, think, and figure out if they are arguing against the question or the interpretation.

As for the president to be able to make decisions if the will of the people is not established, see Term 3 of DG3 and you will see what happens.

Some of the preceeding dialogue is getting a bit too personal :nono:

edit: the series of posts before Bill's in particular -- don't want to point at the wrong people... :)

As for the president to be able to make decisions if the will of the people is not established, see Term 3 of DG3 and you will see what happens.

As strange as it may seem given which side of this issue I'm on, I have to slow you down a bit there. donsig claims that the WOTP was in favor of war with the Aztecs, and that conduct of that war was a "trivial" matter. His decision to continue play may have been excessively antagonistic, but it appears to have been done to make a specific political point that there was no legal standing for any chat-based decisions at that time.

Rather than focusing "pro-chat" arguments on keeping another DG3 T3 from happening, we need to focus more on specific circumstances where chat powers make sense and argue from a positive position instead of a negative one.

Some of the preceeding dialogue is getting a bit too personal :nono:

edit: the series of posts before Bill's in particular -- don't want to point at the wrong people... :)
sometimes its nice to remind people where their place is if you know what i mean ;)

As strange as it may seem given which side of this issue I'm on, I have to slow you down a bit there. donsig claims that the WOTP was in favor of war with the Aztecs, and that conduct of that war was a "trivial" matter. His decision to continue play may have been excessively antagonistic, but it appears to have been done to make a specific political point that there was no legal standing for any chat-based decisions at that time.

Rather than focusing "pro-chat" arguments on keeping another DG3 T3 from happening, we need to focus more on specific circumstances where chat powers make sense and argue from a positive position instead of a negative one.
I was just pointing out a negative of not having it. There can be large messes and problems to be dealt with. There are a few things I think that should happen when it comes to turnchats and events leading up to them:

- The Ministers and officials should make their instructions ASAP after the TC, then post their plans in a thread in the citizen forum. If it is an issue of fair importance (city placement, trade, war, etc.) then a poll should be made a day or so after the thread is made. This is in order so that these officials can get the will of the people. If a leader does not get the will of the people, or the proof that they has it (links to thread discussions about the instructions), then that official should be CC'ed.

- In the TC, the initial phase would be playing the turns while at least 1 person would find all of the things that were approved by the people, or at least say which ones were not. At that moment, the people of the chat would vote whether the wanted instructions are the will of the people. if it is not, then the chat has the right to make new instructions according to the will of the TC. The DP can possibly have a VETO option, but im afraid of giving the DP too much power.

- After the TC, all instuctions that were changed because they were not the will of the people need to be listed. There also probably should be something sent to the person who made the instructions (PM) saying that they should try to get the people's support for their instructions. If the same official does it again, they are viable to be CC'ed. A list would be made saying who has been warned, and as said, if they need another warning, it should be a CC. The warning list would "refresh" every term, though repeated violations of this area should be noted. An official should never have more than 5 of these for the DG, possibly less. It would depend upon the consistency of them doing it.

- A CC in this case wouldhave to be resolved ASAP. For the time of the "trial", the official would still do their duties unless they resign. If they resign they will still be tried. It would be a quick issue where it is shown that the will of the people was not gathered, then a vote in the forums would be made asing if they should be punished. If yes, another poll would determine the punishment, including the option the remove the official.

Sarevok and Immortal. That will be enough. Warned. Eyrei.

I still think that the best comprimise is to give those at the chat only the ability to stop the chat and return to the forums if a majority vote is achieved at the chat. It would dissuade fears that the DP is becoming a dictator without giving those who attend turnchats more real influence than those who play the game only on the forums.

Which is my point exactly, democracy is better than the DP effectively gaining absolute power. They already have the ability to change build queues at will as they have absolute control of what really happens in the game.

No, the DP does NOT have the ability to change build queues! Build queues set by governors via posted instructions in the game play instruction thread are NOT (I repeat NOT) subject to change by the DP! Chieftess did this in DGIV and a CC was promptly filed against her. I spent at least three terms volunteering to act as prosecution in that CC but our judiciary never saw fit to act on the case.

Yes, the DP has the ability to change build queues because he or she is playing the game. Having that ability is not the same as having the authority to do so. The DP has no authority to change a governor's posted build queues. The whole purpose of the chats is so the DP can relay what is being done so that those at the chats (and anyone else later looking at the chat logs) can point out DP actions that contradict our rules.

To me, this is such a useless arguement.

What we are supposed to be playing here is the Democracy Game. I would put that in simpler terms if I could. This game uses representitive form of GOVERNMENT. The citizens of this game elect others to represent their will during the process of the game. Are we all on the same page thus far?

During the processing (or playing) of the game, we rely on our ELECTED Government to move our nation forward through time. Unfortunately, we see a lot of Leaders who believe their duties and responsibilities end after accepting the title of the Office they were elected to. Although I saw some very detailed and encompassing Instructions posted during DG4 (I was very impressed), I am sure this problem will surface again.

What some of you are saying in this thread is that everytime the nation has a problem with one of these Leaders, we should bail on our ELECTED Officials, nay...our form of GOVERNMENT and immediately go into states of ANARCHY in order to move forward in a Democratic fashion. In fact, when any event takes place in the playing of the game, some of you feel the President/DP should throw his hands up in the air, disolve the Government, fall into a state of ANARCHY, and let the People decide (on a moments notice) what course of action to take.

So what you're saying (or asking for) is a Democracy Game in which the playing of the game goes into constant states of ANARCHY to determine the progress of the game. What's the point? Why elect Leaders if you're just going to over rule their decisions? Why elect Governors if you're just going to change their build queues? Why have elections if MOB RULE determines the progress of the game?

These problems that you are having with this issue have been discussed to death in previous DGs. There are rules in place (as standards) that have endured because they protect the will of the people in a general manner. Such rules as Turn Chats only lasting 10 turns maximum. This is an important rule, it ropes in "Cowboy Presidents" who feel they do what they want. The rules on posting Instructions are there to not only hold Leaders accountable for their position, but hold the President to the will of the People. The President playing the Save and controlling the game allows that person to take advice from the people who attend the chat (by spot votes or independant council), or disregard the advice of those people as a matter of national security. There are always rules to be followed for the people we elect.

If you want to revert back to a tried (and failed) form of playing this game, don't call it the Democracy Game. Call it the the Anarchy Game, 'cause whenever something doesn't go according to the way the people in the chat want it to go, the Constituion demands that the President/DP disolve the GOVERNMENT and resolve matters at hand by means of MOB RULE.

[QUOTE=Sarevok]you are effectively saying that if instructions can be changed at the chat, then the leaders will have to show up to defend what they put up. May I reemind you that this poll is for:

In the event that a minister or official does not give instructions, and they or their deputy are not there to give advice on what is to be done, then there will be a vote on what the instruction shall be.
QUOTE]

The wording of the poll does not match your wording above. I think the wording of the poll has to do with whether the will of those at the chat can sometimes be the *will of the people* which is a much broader statement than the one above from you.

In any event, had the poll question been as you word it above I still would vote NO. If there are no posted instructions then it is the DP's job to decide whether or not play should be halted. If the decision is that a given lack of instructions is not enough to justify halting play then the DP goes ahead and plays the game, making appropriate decisions along the way and making the decisions public via the chat log.

The DP is free to ask advice from anyone be they leader, deputy or just plain citizen. Advice is just that and should not be considered as a binding instruction. In your statement of what this poll is about you make a giant leap from asking a leader's advice to enshrining the *will of the people* in a vote among chat attendees! I say NO to this.

Shouldnt it be obvious that if a leader makes no effort to get the will of the people, thats an option for a CC. This already existed, but nobody did it. In other words, what you want exists, but noone is using it.

It is not always the leader's fault when the people do not make their will known. Also, after four full demogames I doubt we could always agree on whether a forum decision has even been made!

As for CC's, they were a joke in DGIV. We had two DP's who blantantly and illegally changed posted game play instructions and because of judicial apathy we never even got to discuss these cases!

As for the president to be able to make decisions if the will of the people is not established, see Term 3 of DG3 and you will see what happens.

As, I said earlier, we cannot even agree when a forum decision has been made. As DP in term three of DG3 I did my best to uphold the *will of the people* as put forth in the forums. Go back and read those threads. The people wanted cities built on what they considered our land. That was accomplished during term three.

No, Sarevok, I do not misunderstand the purpose of this poll. I see it clearly. It is nothing more than an attempt to give unwarranted power to those at the chat, and NO, that would not be more democratic than letting the elected DP do his or her job.

Tell me if I'm wrong here, as I'm going to try to summarize the arguments. The first is debating which is more democratic: having the (elected) DP or the (unelected) chatgoers decide certain ambiguous things in the chat. The second is deciding if a forum decision was made. So, am I right?

I still think that the best comprimise is to give those at the chat only the ability to stop the chat and return to the forums if a majority vote is achieved at the chat. It would dissuade fears that the DP is becoming a dictator without giving those who attend turnchats more real influence than those who play the game only on the forums.

In the event a President becomes unpopular with the chat attendees (for whatever reason) the chat attendees then have the power to halt play repeatedly just because they don't like the DP. Not a very good compromise if you ask me.

To me, this is such a useless arguement.

...

If you want to revert back to a tried (and failed) form of playing this game, don't call it the Democracy Game. Call it the the Anarchy Game, 'cause whenever something doesn't go according to the way the people in the chat want it to go, the Constituion demands that the President/DP disolve the GOVERNMENT and resolve matters at hand by means of MOB RULE.

Great post Cyc! I encourage everone to go back and read this post again.

I find myself agreeing with donsig and Cyc on this one, Cyc's post pretty much summed it up - I too voted no. (a while back, but only just got around to posting)

No, the DP does NOT have the ability to change build queues! Build queues set by governors via posted instructions in the game play instruction thread are NOT (I repeat NOT) subject to change by the DP! Chieftess did this in DGIV and a CC was promptly filed against her. I spent at least three terms volunteering to act as prosecution in that CC but our judiciary never saw fit to act on the case.

Yes, the DP has the ability to change build queues because he or she is playing the game. Having that ability is not the same as having the authority to do so. The DP has no authority to change a governor's posted build queues. The whole purpose of the chats is so the DP can relay what is being done so that those at the chats (and anyone else later looking at the chat logs) can point out DP actions that contradict our rules.
I didnt say Authority, I said ability.

To me, this is such a useless arguement.

What we are supposed to be playing here is the Democracy Game. I would put that in simpler terms if I could. This game uses representitive form of GOVERNMENT. The citizens of this game elect others to represent their will during the process of the game. Are we all on the same page thus far?

During the processing (or playing) of the game, we rely on our ELECTED Government to move our nation forward through time. Unfortunately, we see a lot of Leaders who believe their duties and responsibilities end after accepting the title of the Office they were elected to. Although I saw some very detailed and encompassing Instructions posted during DG4 (I was very impressed), I am sure this problem will surface again.

What some of you are saying in this thread is that everytime the nation has a problem with one of these Leaders, we should bail on our ELECTED Officials, nay...our form of GOVERNMENT and immediately go into states of ANARCHY in order to move forward in a Democratic fashion. In fact, when any event takes place in the playing of the game, some of you feel the President/DP should throw his hands up in the air, disolve the Government, fall into a state of ANARCHY, and let the People decide (on a moments notice) what course of action to take.

So what you're saying (or asking for) is a Democracy Game in which the playing of the game goes into constant states of ANARCHY to determine the progress of the game. What's the point? Why elect Leaders if you're just going to over rule their decisions? Why elect Governors if you're just going to change their build queues? Why have elections if MOB RULE determines the progress of the game?

These problems that you are having with this issue have been discussed to death in previous DGs. There are rules in place (as standards) that have endured because they protect the will of the people in a general manner. Such rules as Turn Chats only lasting 10 turns maximum. This is an important rule, it ropes in "Cowboy Presidents" who feel they do what they want. The rules on posting Instructions are there to not only hold Leaders accountable for their position, but hold the President to the will of the People. The President playing the Save and controlling the game allows that person to take advice from the people who attend the chat (by spot votes or independant council), or disregard the advice of those people as a matter of national security. There are always rules to be followed for the people we elect.

If you want to revert back to a tried (and failed) form of playing this game, don't call it the Democracy Game. Call it the the Anarchy Game, 'cause whenever something doesn't go according to the way the people in the chat want it to go, the Constituion demands that the President/DP disolve the GOVERNMENT and resolve matters at hand by means of MOB RULE.
Interesting post here.... The best one ive seen in this thread....

Apparently my views are being altered to give donsig a stronger argument here. I am not advocating that the TC changes instructions at the drop of the hat. I am willing to let instructions made by offcials to be done without clear support of the people, but they must at least make an effort to get that information. If the DP changes instructions anyway, it is their fault. As I have said before, I have very little interest in giving the DP any real power. I think they should play the game based on the agreed upon instructions. I think that it can be possible for the DP to fill in in case their is a problem. But by "fill-in", that means only essential things. There should not be any scenarios where we see T3DG3 again. Though ive heard that was more or less forced upon the DP, that is something not to be repeated.

My problem is instructions, Instructions should stay the same as they were created. The only thing I want added is that:

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state, then it should be allowed"

By "survival", I mean if enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders. This is the only time when any instructions ought to be changed in any form. Otherwise I completely disagree with the idea.

As for your "anarchy" idea, I can see that. There is no need for a aristocracy to rule the TC's. I can compromise on the issue of letting instructions not approved by the people in the forums be done by the DP, but at their own risk.

Great post Cyc! I encourage everone to go back and read this post again.
EDIT: Dont feel like getting banned today...

This is nearly as bad as having left whatever it was you posted. Do not expect to get the last word unless you want to get banned.

In the event a President becomes unpopular with the chat attendees (for whatever reason) the chat attendees then have the power to halt play repeatedly just because they don't like the DP. Not a very good compromise if you ask me.
Still wanting to keep power strictly in the DP's hands? The people of the TC should at least have the option to halt the TC if they cant be the will of the people.

I think it is apparent from the number of people voting for each side of this debate that some sort of compromise is in order. Why don't we work towards that instead of getting in shouting matches.

Or, we can make this compremise right here:

The people of the chat is the will of the people when 33% (or 50%) of the census is in attendance and all 33% (or 50%) has voted.


BTW, we really need to pick things up. 2 months without a demogame is absurd.

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state, then it should be allowed"

By "survival", I mean if enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders. This is the only time when any instructions ought to be changed in any form. Otherwise I completely disagree with the idea.

As for your "anarchy" idea, I can see that. There is no need for a aristocracy to rule the TC's. I can compromise on the issue of letting instructions not approved by the people in the forums be done by the DP, but at their own risk.

Then why don't you word it like this:

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state because enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders, then it should be allowed"

Why we need such a rule is beyond me. In four demogames we've never come close to this situation - not even during the infamous Aztec War of term three DG III.

I think it is apparent from the number of people voting for each side of this debate that some sort of compromise is in order. Why don't we work towards that instead of getting in shouting matches.

Any suggestions as to what the compromise might be? You've said that giving those at the chat the sole power to stop the chat wouold be a good compromise. While disagree with the idea I'm certainly willing to discuss it. Under what conditions would we allow a halt in play to be requested? How many votes would it take to actually force the halt? Anyone have any specific proposals?

Or, we can make this compremise right here:

The people of the chat is the will of the people when 33% (or 50%) of the census is in attendance and all 33% (or 50%) has voted.

BTW, we really need to pick things up. 2 months without a demogame is absurd.

What's the hurry CT. As far as I'm concerned DG IV isn't even over yet since we have a couple outstanding CC's to resolve.

Anyway, I for one am against letting those at the chat form the*will of the people* under any circumstances. If the chatgoers will not drop the issue then (given this close vote) it makes most sense to let the chatters stop play under certain conditions. Perhaps we could use your numbers as a basis for a quorum to decide if play could actually be halted.

Well, just one more post before I call it a night. Seems we held a poll about who should be allowed to halt the chat. If *DP only* is the winner of that poll then we shouldn't really ignore that poll and give the chat attendees the power to stop the chat.

Then why don't you word it like this:

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state because enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders, then it should be allowed"

Why we need such a rule is beyond me. In four demogames we've never come close to this situation - not even during the infamous Aztec War of term three DG III.
Nobody can tell the future, this might happen.

Any suggestions as to what the compromise might be? You've said that giving those at the chat the sole power to stop the chat wouold be a good compromise. While disagree with the idea I'm certainly willing to discuss it. Under what conditions would we allow a halt in play to be requested? How many votes would it take to actually force the halt? Anyone have any specific proposals?
I think the following conditions would be suitable for a stop of play:

- A severe mix-up in instructions, leading to complete chaos in the TC
- A Declaration of war against us
- The wholesale collapse of our armies on the field
- Any other time when a crisis is created in the game

However, by "crisis" i mean sever crisis that could casue the face of the game to change dramatically, such as seeing large numbers of units in our territory, or if we are facing economic collapse. "Crisis" is not something that happens every day, but mabye once or twice during a game.

Well, just one more post before I call it a night. Seems we held a poll about who should be allowed to halt the chat. If *DP only* is the winner of that poll then we shouldn't really ignore that poll and give the chat attendees the power to stop the chat.
I agree with you on this one. The power must also rest in the people at the TC.

I believe we have already had laws in the past that required the turn chat to stop in the event of certain circumstances. Why not use those?

I honestly don't understand this fear of a dictatorship thing. If CC's are prosecuted in a timely manner, the issue is resolved.

This poll is misunderstood.

everyone arguing against this needs to stop, think, and figure out if they are arguing against the question or the interpretation.



I am arguing against both ;)

I know exactly what this leads too. More power to run the game via turn chat and less incentive to run the game in the forums. it is hard enough to get good discussion about the game as it is.

I believe we have already had laws in the past that required the turn chat to stop in the event of certain circumstances. Why not use those?

I honestly don't understand this fear of a dictatorship thing. If CC's are prosecuted in a timely manner, the issue is resolved.
Thats the problem, CC's were not dealt with in a timely fashion.

I am arguing against both ;)

I know exactly what this leads too. More power to run the game via turn chat and less incentive to run the game in the forums. it is hard enough to get good discussion about the game as it is.
with all the judicial crap, on the other hand an effort to get the will of the people rather than the will of the chat would encourage discussion, as who wants an elitist group to run the show?

First, when did it become normal around here to consistantly post multiple posts consecutively in one thread within minutes of each other?

Secondly, I agree with giving the people at the T/C (assuming a certain population, and not neccisarily based on forum population) having the power to halt a T/C. Donsig, voiced fear that this would encourage a crippling "mob rule" against unpopular Presidents.
However, I disagree, those at the T/C want to play the game, they want to participate. They DO NOT want to halt their own game experience over some political argument.

As a long-time player of the Democracy games, I can definately tell who wants the outcome of this poll to be "yes". It's such a shame that the recruiting methods, or just plain adding votes to the count is still practiced here.

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. :rolleyes: Gee, I wonder why....

As a long-time player of the Democracy games, I can definately tell who wants the outcome of this poll to be "yes". It's such a shame that the recruiting methods, or just plain adding votes to the count is still practiced here.

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. :rolleyes: Gee, I wonder why....

Enough of your baseless allegations, Cyc. Warned.

Cyc, not everything is a conspiracy theory. ;) Still, the people have spoken - People *CAN* elect to stop the chat if they deem it's needed. Think of it as a system of checks and balances. 10 voices are better than 1.

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. :rolleyes: Gee, I wonder why....

Actually, I elected NOT to use that option so no one could judge someone based on their vote unless they purposely posted it here. As for why it has more votes, maybe that's because it's dragging people out of the woodwork.

Actually, I elected NOT to use that option so no one could judge someone based on their vote unless they purposely posted it here. As for why it has more votes, maybe that's because it's dragging people out of the woodwork.
Good Idea, as in this place that could lead to many future problems in the DG crowd. We have already seen that things things that happen in the DG can mark you for good, even if you end up being completely different later.

Thats the problem, CC's were not dealt with in a timely fashion.

Then it seems to me that perhaps we should resolve that problem.

Then it seems to me that perhaps we should resolve that problem.
it is already being discussed.

I think the following conditions would be suitable for a stop of play:

- A severe mix-up in instructions, leading to complete chaos in the TC
- A Declaration of war against us
- The wholesale collapse of our armies on the field
- Any other time when a crisis is created in the game

However, by "crisis" i mean sever crisis that could casue the face of the game to change dramatically, such as seeing large numbers of units in our territory, or if we are facing economic collapse. "Crisis" is not something that happens every day, but mabye once or twice during a game.

Severe mix-ups in instructions leading to chaos in the turn chat? You mean like when the people want to do one thing and the leader posts appropriate instructions but those at the chat want to do something else? No, I have faith that our duly elected President can handle any mix ups that occur.

Stopping every time war is declared on us is not necessary. Ever hear of the Domino War in DG1? It's plain silly to stop play in a situation like that.

I think that if we experienced a wholesale collapse in the field our President would surely stop.

Again, I think the President would stop if it were a real crisis.

There is no need to give those at the chat the ability to halt play.

Severe mix-ups in instructions leading to chaos in the turn chat? You mean like when the people want to do one thing and the leader posts appropriate instructions but those at the chat want to do something else? No, I have faith that our duly elected President can handle any mix ups that occur.

Stopping every time war is declared on us is not necessary. Ever hear of the Domino War in DG1? It's plain silly to stop play in a situation like that.

I think that if we experienced a wholesale collapse in the field our President would surely stop.

Again, I think the President would stop if it were a real crisis.

There is no need to give those at the chat the ability to halt play.
"severe mix-ups" are situations that were not prepared for or if major things cannot be done in anyway and there is a collapse of order. Since obviously the poll to have the ability to make new instructions in the TC if things go wrong will be sacked even if it wins, we cant do this. As for our "duly elected president", after your stuff in DG3 I dont trust the DP's to behave themselves when they can do anything they want.

Perhaps the wording "The beginning of a war against us started by an enemy force" would suit you better?

If you think they would stop, then why did you advocate in the other thread that nobody should stop it? Thats a bit... hypocritical. If we have a real crisis, and we cant legally stop the chat, then that would be a real problem wouldnt it?

And for not letting the citizens decide that crisis has struck and the chat should be stopped, then once again there can be a DP running blindly with power oblivious to the shouting of the citizens in the TC.

BTW, Your wording is a bit insulting. This is a debate, not a shouting match.

BTW, Your wording is a bit insulting. This is a debate, not a shouting match.

That is for the moderators to decide. I suggest you leave it to us...

it is already being discussed.

Good!

Then it seems there is no need for this three page discussion that from what I read in your response is meant to solve the CC problem.

My fear is that we try to insititute new policies to address a more easily correctable problem, without considering the implications of the new policy.

To me, fix the CC process, and all of these fears of the DP being out of control would then be moot.

My fear is that we try to insititute new policies to address a more easily correctable problem, without considering the implications of the new policy.

To me, fix the CC process, and all of these fears of the DP being out of control would then be moot.

There is another reason to stop play -- if conditions change and posted instructions are no longer valid, or are significantly messed up by the new conditions.

That's a judgement call, DaveShack. Who is going to determine when things get messed up? Or when posted Instructions are no longer valid?

The DP. The ending of the Turn Chat prior to the 10th turn is at the DP's discretion.

Just a little question: What is the point for a normal citisen to join a turnchat if he has no power, and can read about it afterwards in the forums?

Cheetah, you know as well as I do, there's a lot more to a t/c than playing the game. It's more of a social gathering with the Demogame at the center. The DP will probably always ask the attendees for advice on different situations. The DP will also need information from knowledable attendees. Most importantly, SOMEONE needs to be there to verify what the DP does. It is not just a question of "Do the atendees have the power to alter the DP's job..."

Yes, I guess you've got a point. If the DP communicates and discuss with the atendees, there is no need for any power for the citisens during the TC.

Though there is no need to verify what the DP does during a chat, as it should be possible to read about it in the forums afterwards:Most importantly, SOMEONE needs to be there to verify what the DP does.

Yes, I guess you've got a point. If the DP communicates and discuss with the atendees, there is no need for any power for the citisens during the TC.

Though there is no need to verify what the DP does during a chat, as it should be possible to read about it in the forums afterwards:

I beg to differ. Someone should always be there to verify the actions of the DP, asking questions and giving input. If not it is merely a closed door turn session, which has never gained much citizen support. We always need verification.

I beg to differ. Someone should always be there to verify the actions of the DP, asking questions and giving input. If not it is merely a closed door turn session, which has never gained much citizen support. We always need verification.

Ah, snap, that reminds me. Do we want to allow closed-door sessions?

Not just No, but ____ No...:)

Maybe for preturn moves only, and that may already be covered somewhere.

Ah, snap, that reminds me. Do we want to allow closed-door sessions?
closed door sessions is a bad idea...

That's a judgement call, DaveShack. Who is going to determine when things get messed up? Or when posted Instructions are no longer valid?

The DP. The ending of the Turn Chat prior to the 10th turn is at the DP's discretion.

Well, we had a case where it was so obvious that everyone knew conditions had changed, and the DP played on.

Continuing on without discussion is bad -- we need to be able to tell the DP to stop, and to complain when he/she does not.

Stopping things for no reason in order to disrupt the game is bad -- and we need to be able to complain when someone stops the game without reason.

Turns cannot be undone once played -- therefore continuing on is a bigger problem than stopping for no reason.

Well, we had a case where it was so obvious that everyone knew conditions had changed, and the DP played on.

Continuing on without discussion is bad -- we need to be able to tell the DP to stop, and to complain when he/she does not.

Stopping things for no reason in order to disrupt the game is bad -- and we need to be able to complain when someone stops the game without reason.

Turns cannot be undone once played -- therefore continuing on is a bigger problem than stopping for no reason.
There has to be a very logical and obvious reason as to why gameplay is stopped.

"severe mix-ups" are situations that were not prepared for or if major things cannot be done in anyway and there is a collapse of order. Since obviously the poll to have the ability to make new instructions in the TC if things go wrong will be sacked even if it wins, we cant do this. As for our "duly elected president", after your stuff in DG3 I dont trust the DP's to behave themselves when they can do anything they want.

Were you even there during DG3T3? If not how can you judge my actions back then? As DP (be it in DG1 or DG3) I always played the save according to posted instructions and in the absence of posted instructions tried my best to play the game the way I thought the citizens as a whole wanted it played. I share your distrust of DPs but it is much better to police the DPs through the game play instruction threads and the forums than during the chats.

If you think they would stop, then why did you advocate in the other thread that nobody should stop it? Thats a bit... hypocritical. If we have a real crisis, and we cant legally stop the chat, then that would be a real problem wouldnt it?

In four demogames we've never had a situation where play was not halted in a genuine crisis. Many times we've stopped play conservatively. I fought the chat attendees in DG1 over selling medicine and stopped play against their will. The issue was decided in the forums (in favor of selling the tech which was what the chat goers wanted). The decision was implemented during the next chat and the game continued. This situation was by no means a *crisis* but even I, the epitomy of the EVIL DP, saw fit to stop play under these circumstances. I cannot imagine a case where a DP faced by a REAL crisis wouldn't stop.

In four demogames we've never had a situation where play was not halted in a genuine crisis. Many times we've stopped play conservatively. I fought the chat attendees in DG1 over selling medicine and stopped play against their will. The issue was decided in the forums (in favor of selling the tech which was what the chat goers wanted). The decision was implemented during the next chat and the game continued. This situation was by no means a *crisis* but even I, the epitomy of the EVIL DP, saw fit to stop play under these circumstances. I cannot imagine a case where a DP faced by a REAL crisis wouldn't stop.

IIRC, I had an instruction to sell medicine that fateful chat. ;)

IIRC, I had an instruction to sell medicine that fateful chat. ;)

I don't think so CT. Selling medicine came up during the chat. I'm sure you were the one who thought of doing it but if it had been a posted instruction it would have been done. Do you want to look it up or should I?

Were you even there during DG3T3? If not how can you judge my actions back then? As DP (be it in DG1 or DG3) I always played the save according to posted instructions and in the absence of posted instructions tried my best to play the game the way I thought the citizens as a whole wanted it played. I share your distrust of DPs but it is much better to police the DPs through the game play instruction threads and the forums than during the chats.

No, I was not port of the Democracy game during that time, I joined the game DG3T5. I have however, read everything from that time and I know exactly what happened. I have read everything from the forum discussions to the turnchat log. I know as much as I can without actually having seen it. As you said above however, you distrust the DP's motives like I do, but I also would distrust a DP's actions that would do what you described above: " in the absence of posted instructions tried my best to play the game the way I thought the citizens as a whole wanted it played." It is better to have a DP that thinks with the people rather than one that thinks for the people in my opinion and I beleive you share the same view.

In four demogames we've never had a situation where play was not halted in a genuine crisis. Many times we've stopped play conservatively. I fought the chat attendees in DG1 over selling medicine and stopped play against their will. The issue was decided in the forums (in favor of selling the tech which was what the chat goers wanted). The decision was implemented during the next chat and the game continued. This situation was by no means a *crisis* but even I, the epitomy of the EVIL DP, saw fit to stop play under these circumstances. I cannot imagine a case where a DP faced by a REAL crisis wouldn't stop.

If there was no instruction on selling medicine in that game, and there was a brewing fight in the TC, you had every right to stop the TC. If however there was an instruction to do so, it should have been done without a second thought except to if it was the will of the people.

IIRC, I had an instruction to sell medicine that fateful chat. ;)

I looked it up CT. Here are your psted instructions:

Turn 0

India - End Gems deal

Zulus
Electricty --> Saltpeter (or 276 gold upfront), Indust., Incense

England (not sure we should trade these. Vote needed).

Wines --> Spices, Navigation, Chemistry, World Map

Turn 1

Rome - End Horses deal and renegotiate

Turn 5

Greece - Renegotiate Ivory deal (if they ask)
Zulus - Renegotiate Spice deal (if they ask)

Turn 6

India - Renegotiate Ivory deal (if they ask)


No mention of medicine...

Wow, the EVIL DP, when confronted with an unexpected situation he judged to be serious stopped play. Who would have thunk it?

I looked it up CT. Here are your psted instructions:



No mention of medicine...

Wow, the EVIL DP, when confronted with an unexpected situation he judged to be serious stopped play. Who would have thunk it?
Interesting, so you were in the right and yet you got whacked for it... who knew?