This poll is much like my other one, just to gauge citizen opinion in relation to the role of the citizenry at the chat. So, which is it? Should we give the DP, and the DP only, the power to stop the chat, or should we give citizens, and perhaps the Council (Military Leader, Foreign Affairs Leader, etc.) at the chat this right as well?

NOTE: If the Council and/or the Citizenry could stop the chat, there would have to be a necessary quorum of people at the chat for them to overrule the DP.

EDIT: Discussion link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=90187)

the DP and the DP only.

I believe that there should be some sort of chat-stopping mechanism in place. What those who argue for Forumgoers rights fail to realize is that a vote by the (possibly minimal) citizens in chat would actually preserve those rights by allowing the forumgoers to have a voice in turns that may otherwise have been played if the DP had full reign.

I have voted DP, the Council, and the Citizenry, but we need to take great care in how we implement it.

What those who argue for Forumgoers rights fail to realize is that a vote by the (possibly minimal) citizens in chat would actually preserve those rights by allowing the forumgoers to have a voice in turns that may otherwise have been played if the DP had full reign.
Don't give me that crap, I elect my DP to make the tough decisions when the situation warrents it. To make the claim that the forumgoers owe chatroomers anything is a silly assumption I do not agree with.

Immortal: the DP is not the same as the president

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

- Meaning: the citizens need a tool to stop the DP from using absolute power. They should be able to stop the chat, if certain conditions are met. As DZ says, determining them is the tough part.

Of course the DP should be able to stop the chat. But that is so logical. The DP plays the turns, if the DP decides to stop, the chat stops (which isn't the same as the DP hands over to the next).

The council is the hardest part. The council already has the power to stop a chat, if it's posted in the instrutions. If the don't post such instructions I think they should be viewed as citizens for the turnchat.

So my vote goed to "DP and the Citizenry", but a close 2nd is "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry". If "DP only" and "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry" are tied, consider my vote to be for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry"

fine, Ill edit my post to say: I elected my DP.

Absolute power corrupts: Unaccepted, there are numerous fail safes in place for a corrupt DP, including impeachment, and moderation. If there is ever a situation where the citizenry (forum citizenry) feels play should have been stopped, then there should be punishment if it is decided upon by the forum citizenry. This concentrates power squarely where it belongs: the forum.

I have voted for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry".

I voted DP only.

I would have thought that maybe by Game 5 we would have learned from our past mistakes, but no. The DP is tasked with playing the game under the guidence of posted orders. Those at turn chat should never be elevated over that responsibility, and to allow an assembled group to do so at their own whim is wrong, blatantly wrong.

Bill_in_PDX is correct again. The President/DP is restricted to playing a 10 turn Turn Chat, by law. Only that person should have the ability to end the Turn Chat prior to turn 10.

The President/DP is restricted to playing a 10 turn Turn Chat, by law.

To be clear, that was specifically stated in the law in DG4 -- IIRC in DG3 it was not stated in law, and was challenged by at least one person as being an unwritten tradition.

Depending on where we are in the game, up to 10 turns of unguided / misguided play by a DP making up his/her own decisions could do a lot of damage. That could be a huge number of decision points we might fly right by without citizen input. That input is the whole point in playing, isn't it?

Don't give me that crap, I elect my DP to make the tough decisions when the situation warrents it. To make the claim that the forumgoers owe chatroomers anything is a silly assumption I do not agree with.
Well, most people do not elect a president to become supreme dictator of the TC's. I would elect a president that I believe could do their job the best and be open-minded to the will of the people.

As for the issue, I think the DP should have the power to stop the chat, but the citizens should be able to override the DP saying not to stop it. We know what happens when the people want the TC stopped, but the DP just goes on anyway.

Immortal: the DP is not the same as the president

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

- Meaning: the citizens need a tool to stop the DP from using absolute power. They should be able to stop the chat, if certain conditions are met. As DZ says, determining them is the tough part.

Of course the DP should be able to stop the chat. But that is so logical. The DP plays the turns, if the DP decides to stop, the chat stops (which isn't the same as the DP hands over to the next).

The council is the hardest part. The council already has the power to stop a chat, if it's posted in the instrutions. If the don't post such instructions I think they should be viewed as citizens for the turnchat.

So my vote goed to "DP and the Citizenry", but a close 2nd is "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry". If "DP only" and "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry" are tied, consider my vote to be for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry"
Well said Rik, that sums up what I meant right there :)

It should be the following:

1 - The DP's discretion.
2 - The people in attendance want the chat stopped.

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.
May I remind you that chat stops are for dire situations, not to be done as a random suggestion, but at a time of crisis and where there is a need for a greater discussion.

Unless there are any objections, I suggest that this poll run for two more days, then we do an official poll between the two options with the most votes.

to me Citizenry includes the council, and that's why I voted DP and citizenry

Citizenry + council + DP seems over redudant to me

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.

I just can't buy this argument. There is absolutely no way that those at the chat can override the will of the people on any matter because all that happens is the decision goes back to the forums. They may be able to delay the will of the people, but that is a wholly different thing. Regardless, the point of this thread is to find out if something like this is an acceptable comprimise. Those of you arguing against it without offering any other solution are doing nothing but delaying the game.

eyrei, I just can't buy nthat arguement, as it just doesn't make sense. You're claiming that one side of this debate is offering a compromise of stopping the chat by the will of the chat-goers. :rolleyes: Isn't that what they wanted in the first place?

OK, here's a compromise from the other side. Let's not allow the chat-goers to stop the chat, leaving it in the hands of the DP. There, now one side has matched the other in compromise offers.

eyrei, I just can't buy nthat arguement, as it just doesn't make sense. You're claiming that one side of this debate is offering a compromise of stopping the chat by the will of the chat-goers. :rolleyes: Isn't that what they wanted in the first place?

OK, here's a compromise from the other side. Let's not allow the chat-goers to stop the chat, leaving it in the hands of the DP. There, now one side has matched the other in compromise offers.

No, the comprimise is between the idea that those at the chat can affect the DP's decisions during the chat, and the idea that they should have no ability to affect the chat in any way. Regardless, the comprimise was offered from myself, who believes that once the chat starts, the DP should not be influenced except in the form of suggestions by those at the chat. My only goal here is to get this resolved so the game can continue.

Well, most people do not elect a president to become supreme dictator of the TC's. I would elect a president that I believe could do their job the best and be open-minded to the will of the people.

As for the issue, I think the DP should have the power to stop the chat, but the citizens should be able to override the DP saying not to stop it. We know what happens when the people want the TC stopped, but the DP just goes on anyway.

Yes, we know what happens, DGIII Term III, right? Well my friend, there was once a time when a DP wanted to stop play but those at the chat wanted to continue. The DP stopped anyway and of course the chat goers were furious and they called for the DPs head on a platter, etc. The game went on but we ended up being stuck with a restrictive ruleset for the next DG which we left behind for the DG after that. Sound familiar?

If you all want to get together an elect a president that will pander to those at the chat go ahead and do it but don't give the chat goers authority to halt play, force a continuation of play, form the *will of the people*, make changes to posted instructions or otherwise hinder a President who wants to do his or her job.

Immortal: the DP is not the same as the president

The council is the hardest part. The council already has the power to stop a chat, if it's posted in the instrutions. If the don't post such instructions I think they should be viewed as citizens for the turnchat.


Since we allow the President to set the chat times there is hardly reason for a CoC. I did not find it difficult when I was President to schedule chats so that I could be the DP. DP = President is a good assumption.

In four demogames I have never seen the Council given authority to end a chat. AS President / DP I would ignore any instructions to stop the chat as being illegal and therefore invalid.

Unless there are any objections, I suggest that this poll run for two more days, then we do an official poll between the two options with the most votes.

I object to that process. We only need another poll if there is a tie among the top vote getters.

No, the comprimise is between the idea that those at the chat can affect the DP's decisions during the chat, and the idea that they should have no ability to affect the chat in any way. Regardless, the comprimise was offered from myself, who believes that once the chat starts, the DP should not be influenced except in the form of suggestions by those at the chat. My only goal here is to get this resolved so the game can continue.

If you want it resolved then let's take the results of this poll and go from there. If the winner is DP only then we are done. If the winner is DP and someone else then we'll open a discussion thread and try to decide under what circumstances that someone can stop play.

Right now, 8 people have voted for DP only, and 12 people have voted for DP and someone else. This means at present we definitely are going to have someone other than the DP have the ability to stop the chat. Any other interpretation of the results would be statistically flawed. In DG3 we called this a "cumulative" poll, but it was not written correctly.

On the subject of how polling will proceed: Upon further consideration, I remembered that this was only and informational poll. I will start the official polling process shortly.

Since we allow the President to set the chat times there is hardly reason for a CoC. I did not find it difficult when I was President to schedule chats so that I could be the DP. DP = President is a good assumption.

In four demogames I have never seen the Council given authority to end a chat. AS President / DP I would ignore any instructions to stop the chat as being illegal and therefore invalid.
And therein lies the problem: In a time of crisis when discussin must me made to fix a situation, sometimes play must be stopped. That is why when you didnt do that, the crisis of T3DG3 was created.

Right now, 8 people have voted for DP only, and 12 people have voted for DP and someone else. This means at present we definitely are going to have someone other than the DP have the ability to stop the chat. Any other interpretation of the results would be statistically flawed. In DG3 we called this a "cumulative" poll, but it was not written correctly.
I actually voted wrong on this poll, I accidentally clicked DP and the council, when I meant The DP, council, and Citizenry. Keepthat in mind when this poll closes.

I just can't buy this argument. There is absolutely no way that those at the chat can override the will of the people on any matter because all that happens is the decision goes back to the forums. They may be able to delay the will of the people, but that is a wholly different thing. Regardless, the point of this thread is to find out if something like this is an acceptable comprimise. Those of you arguing against it without offering any other solution are doing nothing but delaying the game.

Well since this is directed at me, I will respond.

First, as noted, the "compromise" is no compromise at all for those who want the chat attendees to override the DP. It is what they want.

Second, I am not happy to read the implication that by offering my opinion, I am somehow holding up the game. I thought this was a discussion/poll of that topic. I am not being sarcastic about that either. Apparently I am mistaken about this forum. If I held up the game now by suggesting that this idea is fatally flawed, then I counter by saying that the game hold ups later on will be frequent and lead to further judiciary crap.

Third, I still object, and here is why. The will of the people is in fact defeated when a small group of people who (either dislike the president, or disagree with the forums), can attend chat can vote to stop the chat at the beginning. It can, and will happen IMO. And continue to do so until the term ends, thus overriding the President's ability to carry out what is required in the forums.

I have heard the phase "only act on suggestions" and only stop in "dire" situations. Those things must be defined, especially this "suggestions" thing. The DP is screwed otherwise no matter what he or she does. This type of thing is what led us to set rules allowing only the DP to end the chat in the first place. It leads to a lot of political BS.

Shall our president be a leader of our nation or a peon who moves things, in sometimes contradictary manner at the whim of whomever is in chat? Seems like many here want a peon.

I say the President should be a leader. Otherwise, why would we bother with any of this election and forum stuff, and just shift to a chat game.

In four demogames I have never seen the Council given authority to end a chat. AS President / DP I would ignore any instructions to stop the chat as being illegal and therefore invalid.

I believe the reference was to an advisor giving instructions that say to stop the chat if a certain unexpected but not unanticipated event occurred (such as a declaration of war (I'm not referring to the Aztec war in DG3)).

I believe the reference was to an advisor giving instructions that say to stop the chat if a certain unexpected but not unanticipated event occurred (such as a declaration of war (I'm not referring to the Aztec war in DG3)).
thats why the chat should be halted: in case unexpected major events occur.

And therein lies the problem: In a time of crisis when discussin must me made to fix a situation, sometimes play must be stopped. That is why when you didnt do that, the crisis of T3DG3 was created.

Baloney. A we got a pop up window a turn or two into term three. It was Monty telling us to get off hisland. This was not a surprise to me. We had been trying to block the Aztec settlers back in term two and it was quite apparent what was about to happen. I had already asked the FA Minister to find out what should be done if the Aztecs built a city on our land. I also asked the Military Leader to draw up plans in case of war. We were also coming off a period where play had been slowed. The previous president had cancelled a game play session due to lack of input from the citizens! There was no *crisis*. We had built a formidible army for the Egyptian war. The Aztecs were no match for us. Discussion had begun and there was support for the war. The DG3T3 crisis began when I refused to even ask those at the chat for advice.

In four demogames we have not had one instance where a DP did not stop play when it was truly necessary. I myself was villified back in DG1 for stopping play when I thought it was necessary even though those at the chat had wanted to proceed. The only reason people have for giving someone other than the DP power to stop play is DG3T3 and all I can say to that is:

BALONEY!

Baloney. A we got a pop up window a turn or two into term three. It was Monty telling us to get off hisland. This was not a surprise to me. We had been trying to block the Aztec settlers back in term two and it was quite apparent what was about to happen. I had already asked the FA Minister to find out what should be done if the Aztecs built a city on our land. I also asked the Military Leader to draw up plans in case of war. We were also coming off a period where play had been slowed. The previous president had cancelled a game play session due to lack of input from the citizens! There was no *crisis*. We had built a formidible army for the Egyptian war. The Aztecs were no match for us. Discussion had begun and there was support for the war. The DG3T3 crisis began when I refused to even ask those at the chat for advice.

In four demogames we have not had one instance where a DP did not stop play when it was truly necessary. I myself was villified back in DG1 for stopping play when I thought it was necessary even though those at the chat had wanted to proceed. The only reason people have for giving someone other than the DP power to stop play is DG3T3 and all I can say to that is:

BALONEY!
Your knowledge is way off. You dont participate in the game anymore. I have not seen you at a single TC and the only evidence of you being in one was the T3DG3 TC. That was the only time I have even remotely heard of you being at a TC. Therefore, do not argue for or against something you do not understand.

I'm going to start handing out bans if some of you don't stop 'yelling' at each other, and try to find a solution.

Participation determined by Turnchat attendence, this is what I have a problem with right here. This problem is what needs to be addressed eyrei, the turnchat should ALWAYS be second to the forums, it is the most democratic way for ALL citizens to participate.

Opinions like "you barely participate; you dont go to turnchats, therefore shouldn't say anything" hurt citizen discussion, impedes new citizens from making a difference, reduces non-turnchat members and new citizens ability to be elected and simply drives a wedge between two groups of otherwise pleasent people.

Baloney. A we got a pop up window a turn or two into term three. It was Monty telling us to get off hisland. This was not a surprise to me. We had been trying to block the Aztec settlers back in term two and it was quite apparent what was about to happen. I had already asked the FA Minister to find out what should be done if the Aztecs built a city on our land. I also asked the Military Leader to draw up plans in case of war. We were also coming off a period where play had been slowed. The previous president had cancelled a game play session due to lack of input from the citizens! There was no *crisis*. We had built a formidible army for the Egyptian war. The Aztecs were no match for us. Discussion had begun and there was support for the war. The DG3T3 crisis began when I refused to even ask those at the chat for advice.

In four demogames we have not had one instance where a DP did not stop play when it was truly necessary. I myself was villified back in DG1 for stopping play when I thought it was necessary even though those at the chat had wanted to proceed. The only reason people have for giving someone other than the DP power to stop play is DG3T3 and all I can say to that is:

BALONEY!I checked the discussion thread for the Aztec war, and the response was more or less neutral. Some were for it, some were against, some wanted us to wait. If, as you said, the Aztecs placed a city next to our troops and demanded that we leave in the same turn, forcing you to make a decision, you were within your rights to declare war. However, a miscommunication happened in the chatroom that made us believe that you had marched troops there, incurred on their territory intentionally, and declared war when they predictably demanded that the troops leave. Even there, you would not necessarily have been in the wrong by declaring war, though it would have been best if more discussion and a poll had been conducted before attacking. Because of this, many of the people in the chatroom on that day (more than a year ago now, BTW) called for you to stop the chat. The crisis could have been averted entirely if you had stopped it on the turn following the declaration and allowed for detailed plans to be made. Instead, you signed MA's with two other civs (which hadn't been discussed at all) and played on, conducting the war as you pleased for seven turns. Was this as big of a transgression as we played it up to be? Of course it wasn't, but your actions nonetheless made it seem like you were running away with the game, which infuriated many of the people in the chatroom to the point where we (not knowing the full picture) could not be reasoned with. If the citizenry had been able to stop the chat, we would have done so immediately after the declaration, you would have been better able to explain to us what really happened once it was stopped (rather than trying to deal with a lynch mob as happened in reality), and the DG would have gone on without a major disturbance.

That is the reason that I've voted for DP, the Council, and the Citizenry. The Council can stop the chat through instructions (as worked out very nicely in DG4). The Citizenry could, if there was a wide enough consensus, stop the chat if enough citizens in the chatroom consented. I'm not sure on what mechanism we could use for that, but something can be figured out. There would probably have to be a quorum (to avoid situations where there are, for instance, two users in the room and the DP, where the two users could force the DP to stop the chat) as well as a rule that a majority of citizens in attendance would have to agree that the chat should be stopped. Additionally, the citizens in the forum should be able to disallow the chat from being stopped in a forum discussion and/or poll before hand, as a check to make sure that the citizens in the chatroom don't call an excessive number of chat stoppages. Allowing the chatroom citizens to stop the chat, as long as this isn't overused, would allow the forum users to have more of a say as well in what goes on by causing the chat to have to be stopped if the situation became critical. I do understand the argument that the citizens elected the President to be the DP and to make those decisions themself, but it should stand to reason that, if there is something that the chat should be stopped for, the citizens present at it should be able to tell the DP to do so in order for it to be further discussed in the forums.

Participation determined by Turnchat attendence, this is what I have a problem with right here. This problem is what needs to be addressed eyrei, the turnchat should ALWAYS be second to the forums, it is the most democratic way for ALL citizens to participate.

Opinions like "you barely participate; you dont go to turnchats, therefore shouldn't say anything" hurt citizen discussion, impedes new citizens from making a difference, reduces non-turnchat members and new citizens ability to be elected and simply drives a wedge between two groups of otherwise pleasent people.
The TC is where the game is ultimately decided, but th real decision should be in the forums. Though im not going to go off people, this post actually belongs in the oter thread in this forum: the will of the people in the TC one.

As for those opinions... note I was responding to comments saying that they knew a great deal about TC's, when the reality is I have never personally seen them at a TC. Ever. Therefore it is ridiculous that they should form opinions on that and therefore they know nothing about the TC's.

You don't see me at very many TCs, Sarevok, but I feel I have a fairly extensive base of knowledge about them and how they operate. :)

Edit: Post number 5400!

The TC is where the game is ultimately decided, but th real decision should be in the forums. Though im not going to go off people, this post actually belongs in the oter thread in this forum: the will of the people in the TC one.

As for those opinions... note I was responding to comments saying that they knew a great deal about TC's, when the reality is I have never personally seen them at a TC. Ever. Therefore it is ridiculous that they should form opinions on that and therefore they know nothing about the TC's.


Sarevok, this is your final warning. You will stop antagonizing people or you will be banned.

Sarevok, this is your final warning. You will stop antagonizing people or you will be banned.

Alright, since you put it that way I am done here since I am seeing a scenario of my past in this thread. I will however be watching for any insult thrown at me in this thread. I also dont want any response to any post I made in this thread earlier.

Your knowledge is way off. You dont participate in the game anymore. I have not seen you at a single TC and the only evidence of you being in one was the T3DG3 TC. That was the only time I have even remotely heard of you being at a TC. Therefore, do not argue for or against something you do not understand.

And herein lies the whole flipping problem. Unless you are the the CHAT you are not considered to be participating! This is a FORUM based game. A chat was added to make the game more enjoyable for those who like that sort of thing. Ever since the chat was added the trend has been to play the game more and more in the chat and less and less in the forums. If you all want to play a chat based demogame then go do it but let the rest of us have our forum based game.

I checked the discussion thread for the Aztec war, and the response was more or less neutral. Some were for it, some were against, some wanted us to wait. If, as you said, the Aztecs placed a city next to our troops and demanded that we leave in the same turn, forcing you to make a decision, you were within your rights to declare war. However, a miscommunication happened in the chatroom that made us believe that you had marched troops there, incurred on their territory intentionally, and declared war when they predictably demanded that the troops leave.

Miscommunication? Did I say I had moved any troops? No, because I didn't move any troops! Is the DP supposed to put in the log everything he doesn't do? No, there was no miscommunication. Previous presidents had pandered to the chat goers to the point where the chat goers were spoiled into thinking they would be in on every little decision that came along. I made it clear from the git go that I wasn't going to do that and this brought on the wrath of the chat goers.

Even there, you would not necessarily have been in the wrong by declaring war, though it would have been best if more discussion and a poll had been conducted before attacking. Because of this, many of the people in the chatroom on that day (more than a year ago now, BTW) called for you to stop the chat. The crisis could have been averted entirely if you had stopped it on the turn following the declaration and allowed for detailed plans to be made.

I had already asked for plans from the military leader who hadn't even bothered to respond to my pms. We were coming off a period where the last game play session had been cancelled due to lack of forum discussion. I was not about to go down that path. Turns must be played in order to generate discussions.

Instead, you signed MA's with two other civs (which hadn't been discussed at all) and played on, conducting the war as you pleased for seven turns. Was this as big of a transgression as we played it up to be? Of course it wasn't, but your actions nonetheless made it seem like you were running away with the game, which infuriated many of the people in the chatroom to the point where we (not knowing the full picture) could not be reasoned with.

If those at the chat had been paying attention before the chat and had participated in the forum discussions perhaps this whole thing never would have happened. You said earlier you looked at the thread and found responose to the war neutral. Compare the posts in the thread to the chat log and see how many at the chat made their views known in that thread. Those at the chat had no right getting infuriated when they had not even participated in the war discussion! And as for being infuriated, I recall feeling that way myself due to things that were said at the chat.

If the citizenry had been able to stop the chat, we would have done so immediately after the declaration, you would have been better able to explain to us what really happened once it was stopped (rather than trying to deal with a lynch mob as happened in reality), and the DG would have gone on without a major disturbance.

As I said earlier we were coming off a dormant period and I felt it was important to get more than one or two turns played. I also did not think it was wise t allow mob rule.

That is the reason that I've voted for DP, the Council, and the Citizenry. The Council can stop the chat through instructions (as worked out very nicely in DG4).

Had I been DP I would not have recognized the legality of these instructions but there's no point arguing that matter here.

The Citizenry could, if there was a wide enough consensus, stop the chat if enough citizens in the chatroom consented. I'm not sure on what mechanism we could use for that...

We never had success agreeing on quoroms and I really think the time we'd have to spend hammering out this mechanism would not be worth it.

And herein lies the whole flipping problem. Unless you are the the CHAT you are not considered to be participating! This is a FORUM based game. A chat was added to make the game more enjoyable for those who like that sort of thing. Ever since the chat was added the trend has been to play the game more and more in the chat and less and less in the forums. If you all want to play a chat based demogame then go do it but let the rest of us have our forum based game.
Please read my earlier post, and stop trying to provoke me.

It is obvious that we all want a forum-based game. What I dont understand is why you are so increasingly hostile about anything not suggesting absolute power for the DP. The reality of the situation is quite different: There is no truly logical way to have a democracy game on this forum without a TC, as how would the game be played? Alone by the DP who can really just do as they please. We cannot do that, and the TC is both a place of discussion when the game is palyed and a restraint against the DP going too far. That is also the explanation for the chaty being slightly more essential for the game, as that is where ultimately the real action is. Nobody had any decent discussion in the forum except for all of the ridiculous judicial crap. If there is no citizenry to discuss the issue, there cannot be a forum-based game as there is no way to discuss on the forums. Therefore instead of deciding wether this game should be forum-based or chat-based, the first issue must be to consider how many people will be playing in the DG. The more people, the more of a forum-based game it will be.

Going by that judgement, the plan is to spend less time in the books, and more time in the game. I personally believe that the judidicary should only exist, it should not rule. Nor should the DP, who is only to play but not to rule. The true rulers of the game should be the citizenry, and any authoritarian system where 1 figure holds more power than any other I will not stand for, nor will I be around to see them as I would leave.

Alright, since you put it that way I am done here since I am seeing a scenario of my past in this thread. I will however be watching for any insult thrown at me in this thread. I also dont want any response to any post I made in this thread earlier.

I am recalling this post and what it says. I refuse to be treated like a fool. In the event that the threat against me is carried out, I have only one thing to say: " The pen may be mightier than the sword, buy my sword moves faster than the pen and does not have a second thought. "

Please read my earlier post, and stop trying to provoke me.

It is obvious that we all want a forum-based game. What I dont understand is why you are so increasingly hostile about anything not suggesting absolute power for the DP. The reality of the situation is quite different: There is no truly logical way to have a democracy game on this forum without a TC, as how would the game be played? Alone by the DP who can really just do as they please.

The game could be played fine without the chats. It was originally designed to be played that way. The DP would NOT be able to do what he or she pleases as there would still be a game play instruction thread that would have to be follwed. With saved being posted every five turns and a mandatory play log it would be quite easy to check and see that the DP is playing as instructed.

We cannot do that, and the TC is both a place of discussion when the game is palyed and a restraint against the DP going too far. That is also the explanation for the chaty being slightly more essential for the game, as that is where ultimately the real action is. Nobody had any decent discussion in the forum except for all of the ridiculous judicial crap.

Part of the reason there is little discussion now in the forums is due to the very fact that actual decisions are made in the chats more and more. Those who cannot be at the chats find that their voice carries less and less weight. They feel as though their participation is meaningless to the game and they drift away. It's been happening since DG1.
As for the *ridiculous judicial crap* that was a direct result of the crappy rules adopted for DG4 which was a direct result of the chatters being pissed about being shut out of decision making in DG3T3.

If there is no citizenry to discuss the issue, there cannot be a forum-based game as there is no way to discuss on the forums. Therefore instead of deciding wether this game should be forum-based or chat-based, the first issue must be to consider how many people will be playing in the DG. The more people, the more of a forum-based game it will be.

Well, if you all set things up so that the real action is in the chats then the amount of people participating will continue to dwindle down till it gets down to the number of people at the chats. If yu truly want more people invlved then set things up so that the action is available to more people.

Going by that judgement, the plan is to spend less time in the books, and more time in the game. I personally believe that the judidicary should only exist, it should not rule. Nor should the DP, who is only to play but not to rule. The true rulers of the game should be the citizenry, and any authoritarian system where 1 figure holds more power than any other I will not stand for, nor will I be around to see them as I would leave.

Someone has to have authority and only one person can play the save at a time. The whole idea behind the democracy game is to vest the save playing authority in the President while placing reasonable limits on that authority through our constitution. After four demogames we've evolved a pretty good system for defining those reasonable limits, the game play instruction thread being foremost among these. There is no reasonable way to construe the system we have as authoritarian.

The game could be played fine without the chats. It was originally designed to be played that way. The DP would NOT be able to do what he or she pleases as there would still be a game play instruction thread that would have to be follwed. With saved being posted every five turns and a mandatory play log it would be quite easy to check and see that the DP is playing as instructed.

That could possibly work, but as you said above the TC's are more efficient as there are people in a nearby place while all of this game-playing is being done.

Part of the reason there is little discussion now in the forums is due to the very fact that actual decisions are made in the chats more and more. Those who cannot be at the chats find that their voice carries less and less weight. They feel as though their participation is meaningless to the game and they drift away. It's been happening since DG1.
As for the *ridiculous judicial crap* that was a direct result of the crappy rules adopted for DG4 which was a direct result of the chatters being pissed about being shut out of decision making in DG3T3.

I agree here, the decision must be in the forums rather than not in the forums and everything must be done to make sure that is how it is.

Well, if you all set things up so that the real action is in the chats then the amount of people participating will continue to dwindle down till it gets down to the number of people at the chats. If yu truly want more people invlved then set things up so that the action is available to more people.

Again, I agree here. The point is to encourage discussion in the forum rather than in the TC.

Someone has to have authority and only one person can play the save at a time. The whole idea behind the democracy game is to vest the save playing authority in the President while placing reasonable limits on that authority through our constitution. After four demogames we've evolved a pretty good system for defining those reasonable limits, the game play instruction thread being foremost among these. There is no reasonable way to construe the system we have as authoritarian.

So long as the DP cannot overide a majority will of the people, I will have no problems here.