Option 1: The DP's will only
Option 2: The DP's will or a majority vote of Citizens at the chat
Option 3: Abstain

Simple poll. See previous discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92648) and here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93074)

This poll will be open for 5 days.

The DP's will or a majority vote of Citizens at the chat. Often times, I have seen from the FA's instructions to halt the chat in the event another civ declares war on us from out of the blue.

The DP's will or a majority vote of Citizens at the chat. Often times, I have seen from the FA's instructions to halt the chat in the event another civ declares war on us from out of the blue.
I agree with your vote 100% CG :)

I object to this poll. I thought the object of the poll was to decide if chat stopping power should be left solely in the hands of the DP or if this power should also be vested in the chat attendees in some yet to be decided form. In this poll we are not only voting on that question but on the form (i.e., a majority of chat attendees can stop a chat). This throws out all discussion about a possible quorum and allows for a mere handful of citizens (possibly a very small percentage of our citizens) to halt play.

Let us decide first if we even want the chat attendees to be able to stp the chat and if so decided then let us decide how best to go about that.

Please!

I object to this poll. I thought the object of the poll was to decide if chat stopping power should be left solely in the hands of the DP or if this power should also be vested in the chat attendees in some yet to be decided form. In this poll we are not only voting on that question but on the form (i.e., a majority of chat attendees can stop a chat). This throws out all discussion about a possible quorum and allows for a mere handful of citizens (possibly a very small percentage of our citizens) to halt play.

Let us decide first if we even want the chat attendees to be able to stp the chat and if so decided then let us decide how best to go about that.

Please!
small precentage should not be the Idea. I was thinking that if over 50% of the chat attendants wanted to stop the play, then it would be done.

small precentage should not be the Idea. I was thinking that if over 50% of the chat attendants wanted to stop the play, then it would be done.

Well, if we have 60 registered citizens, a census of say 28, and nine citizens at the chat then 5 can halt play. That's less than 25% of the census and only 12% of the registered citizenry. I can't see giving those five random people the power to halt play.

I continue my objections to this poll. Let's first decide if we even want the people at the chat to be able to stop play. If so then let's decide how to implement that decision.

Well, if we have 60 registered citizens, a census of say 28, and nine citizens at the chat then 5 can halt play. That's less than 25% of the census and only 12% of the registered citizenry. I can't see giving those five random people the power to halt play.

I continue my objections to this poll. Let's first decide if we even want the people at the chat to be able to stop play. If so then let's decide how to implement that decision.
however, those 19 who are not at the TC are not represented in the vote for stopping the TC if serious issues occur. The real Idea should be that the decision to halt due to crisis is a chat problem, not a forum problem. It makes no altering decisions to the instructions, and can only really be invoked in serious times of crisis. As said before of course, times when this would happen are very rare and it is more of an emergency vote rather than an occasional vote that gives those at the TC more power. I want this issue for stopping play in times when more discussion is required for major situations (i.e. someone declares war on us out of the blue), not to gove the chance for the TC people to halt the chat when they dont like what the DP is doing. I do think that should the stop option be included, there should be a general guideline as for what reasons these stops should occur.

I was actually planning on determining the additional constraints (and there will be) when we draw up the actual law. These additional constraints would be either a quorum of, say 10 citizens, or 30% of the active citizenry, something like that. As a matter of fact, we could start discussing that here.

I was actually planning on determining the additional constraints (and there will be) when we draw up the actual law. These additional constraints would be either a quorum of, say 10 citizens, or 30% of the active citizenry, something like that. As a matter of fact, we could start discussing that here.
it should be at least 50%
because if 3 ppl were in the chat(not uncommon in long tcs in the modern age) it would only take 1 of them to halt the chat

it should be at least 50%
because if 3 ppl were in the chat(not uncommon in long tcs in the modern age) it would only take 1 of them to halt the chat
I think it would depend upon the number of people. If it was a vote in the TC, then it should be a 75% majority to force a stop.

I was actually planning on determining the additional constraints (and there will be) when we draw up the actual law. These additional constraints would be either a quorum of, say 10 citizens, or 30% of the active citizenry, something like that. As a matter of fact, we could start discussing that here.

Then can you get the wording on this poll's options changed to remove the phrase *majority of citizens at the chat* or what ever it says?

Then can you get the wording on this poll's options changed to remove the phrase *majority of citizens at the chat* or what ever it says?
The problem with that method is that if there is a true moment of crisis, yet a tiny % of people are at the TC, becasue of an unbendable rule gameplay would be forced to continue.

however, those 19 who are not at the TC are not represented in the vote for stopping the TC if serious issues occur.

Right you are. That's why there should not be a vote in the first place!

The real Idea should be that the decision to halt due to crisis is a chat problem, not a forum problem.

No it is neither a *chat problem* nor a *forum problem*. It is a DP problem.

It makes no altering decisions to the instructions, and can only really be invoked in serious times of crisis. As said before of course, times when this would happen are very rare and it is more of an emergency vote rather than an occasional vote that gives those at the TC more power. I want this issue for stopping play in times when more discussion is required for major situations (i.e. someone declares war on us out of the blue), not to gove the chance for the TC people to halt the chat when they dont like what the DP is doing. I do think that should the stop option be included, there should be a general guideline as for what reasons these stops should occur.

Then we go back to the question of WHO decides when we're having an actual crisis for whoever gets to make that decision can trump the vote to begin with. And, once again, a declaration of war out of the blue is not always (in fact rarely is) a crisis. Whether we face a crisis or not will always be a judgement call. I feel safer having the duly elected DP make that call than leaving it in the hands of the chat goers.

Then can you get the wording on this poll's options changed to remove the phrase *majority of citizens at the chat* or what ever it says?

Well... Okay. Mods, please remove the word "majority" from option 2.

Well... Okay. Mods, please remove the word "majority" from option 2.

Done. Stupide ten character limit...

Done. Stupide ten character limit...
So mods hate it too? :lol:

Now that this poll is officially acceptable, it's time for a segue back into the discussion of quorum. After this poll ends, if Option 2 wins (which it seems to be doing rather comfortably right now, :p) I'm going to open a poll to determine how to make a quorum for this. Namely, do we want to have a percentage of the active Citizenry be at the chat, or just a set number for the entire game? Well, discuss amongst yourselves while I... think. Or something.

Whether we face a crisis or not will always be a judgement call. I feel safer having the duly elected DP make that call than leaving it in the hands of the chat goers.

Yes, it is a judgement call. This is the same reason I prefer to have this decision in the hands of the most people possible -- because the DP deciding it is NOT a crisis has the potential to harm everyone by allowing irrevocable actions to proceed which should have been discussed. On the other hand, if the citizens at the chat stop the game, what do we lose? A couple of calendar days for discussion, and if the chat attendees have run amok with the power to stop play we can just pass a law taking the ability away or limiting it further. But nothing a little time can't fix, where if the DP continues and takes away the ability to discuss a situation, the people have permanently lost their right to have their voices heard on that matter.

Yes, it is a judgement call. This is the same reason I prefer to have this decision in the hands of the most people possible -- because the DP deciding it is NOT a crisis has the potential to harm everyone by allowing irrevocable actions to proceed which should have been discussed. On the other hand, if the citizens at the chat stop the game, what do we lose? A couple of calendar days for discussion, and if the chat attendees have run amok with the power to stop play we can just pass a law taking the ability away or limiting it further. But nothing a little time can't fix, where if the DP continues and takes away the ability to discuss a situation, the people have permanently lost their right to have their voices heard on that matter.
Perhaps as a ballance, the DP has to agree to agree to a stop of play unless it is unanimous or it will not be stopped.

Perhaps as a ballance, the DP has to agree to agree to a stop of play unless it is unanimous or it will not be stopped.

GAH! NO! It's almost impossible to get a unanimous vote on anything. Please, consider the options in my last post instead.

Why should we lift the principle of Democracy in the TC? And stopping the chat isn't causing any in-game irreversible changes. Not-stopping has. I see no reason why a single person, the DP (who is not neccesarily elected) should be given the power to go against the "will of the people" ( I still really like that phrase ).

If we have 60 registered citizens and we can choose here to give the decision to 5 (8,33 %) or 1 (1,67 %) then I know what is more democratic.

Why should we lift the principle of Democracy in the TC? And stopping the chat isn't causing any in-game irreversible changes. Not-stopping has. I see no reason why a single person, the DP (who is not neccesarily elected) should be given the power to go against the "will of the people" ( I still really like that phrase ).

If we have 60 registered citizens and we can choose here to give the decision to 5 (8,33 %) or 1 (1,67 %) then I know what is more democratic.
Got a good point there Rik :)

Why should we lift the principle of Democracy in the TC? And stopping the chat isn't causing any in-game irreversible changes. Not-stopping has. I see no reason why a single person, the DP (who is not neccesarily elected) should be given the power to go against the "will of the people" ( I still really like that phrase ).

If we have 60 registered citizens and we can choose here to give the decision to 5 (8,33 %) or 1 (1,67 %) then I know what is more democratic.
i also agree with you 100% on this rik

Abstain? Who abstained?

Abstain? Who abstained?
Interesting.... that is unexpected for an issue that has been so heavily debated.

Well if we had the heuvos to use the new polling option, we'd know that. :rolleyes:

Wow... a 1-vote margin. Pretty slim. Well, it's official. In Demogame 5, the Citizens at the chat will be able to stop it. Now we need to decide: How much of the Citizenry need to be at the chat to stop it? Do we want a set number (say 10) for the entire Demogame, or do we want a percentage (say 25%) of the active Citizenry?