Well, the citizenry will be able to stop any chat in DG5 for any reason. Now we need to decide on how we want to limit this, and the only reasonable way is to make a quorum for this decision. There are two basic ways to do this: a set number (say 10) of citizens has to be at the chat, or a percentage (say 25%) of the active citizenry (the number of voters in the highest-voting election that Term) has to be at the chat. So, which do we want?

NOTE: This poll will be open for 3 days.

A percentage of the current active citizen count in the chatroom

A percentage of the current active citizen count in the chatroom

Uh, no, CG. The winning option is for a certain percentage of the "active citizenry" in the game. Let's say there's 20 active voters, we might need 11 chat goers to vote affirmatively on stopping a chat prior to turn 10 in order to force the chat to stop.

It wouldn't be a percentage of the current active citizen count in the chatroom, cause 1. that wouldn't be a true representation of the will of the People, and 2. you can't really base a rule on such a volitile citizen count.

The question is how many people need to be present at the chat in order for them to be allowed to vote to stop the chat. Then a certain percentage (50% is likely) of the chat goers would have to vote in the affirmative. As far as voting for this poll is concerned, a percentage of the active citizenry allows for variance in active citizens.

Well, I actually expected somebody to vote for option 1, but it seems I was wrong. I'm going to leave this poll open as a formality, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's over, with option 2 as the winner. So, we now need to discuss: What percentage? I think the average attendance for a chat is around 25% of the active citizenry, so 20% seems good to me.

20% of the active citizenry is not a good representation of the will of the people, Noldodan. Let's say there is 20 active citizens. 12 of them are at the chat. 5 people get together and decide to end the chat just for kicks. They call a vote, vote affirmatively, and proclaim the chat over. Not a good idea.

Well then what would be a good percentage Cyc? if your going to put a reason forth as to why it shouldnt be something you could put another option. i think 50% may be a decent percentage of citizens.

I voted for option 2 BTW

Well, I like your suggestion, BCLG100. I think if at least 50% of the active citizens in the game showed up at the chat and all voted to bring it to a halt, that would suffice as a necessary quorum.

So, yes. 50% of the active citizens in DG5 would need to vote in the affirmative in a called vote to halt the chat in order to halt it prior to turn 10 (unless the DP chooses to do so, with or without a vote).

Well, I like your suggestion, BCLG100. I think if at least 50% of the active citizens in the game showed up at the chat and all voted to bring it to a halt, that would suffice as a necessary quorum.

So, yes. 50% of the active citizens in DG5 would need to vote in the affirmative in a called vote to halt the chat in order to halt it prior to turn 10 (unless the DP chooses to do so, with or without a vote).
Well, given in the last recent trends. The Chatroom audiance had dropped a bit in the past few terms. IMO 50% seems to be an impossible to apply to the chatroom since, Im guessing, only about 10%-15% are active citizens in the chatroom.

I would say 34% of the active citizens should be required for a stoppage.

or even as far as 37-40%

Okay, how about this: 35% of the active citizenry has to be at the chat, and more than half of them have to vote to stop the chat. Asking for a higher percentage than 40% of the citizenry is crazy, as our record is around 50%.

NOTE: I'm going to let the discussion run for another 2 days, then I'm planning to open up a poll with 5% increments from 15% to 50%. Then we'll have to have a runoff poll, I think.

How about a minimum 25-35% of our citizens must vote to stop the chat, but if more than 50-70% of our citizens are at the particular chat, the percentage goes up, to at least 50%?

Don't know how good those numbers were, but I hope you understand my idea.

Okay, how about this: 35% of the active citizenry has to be at the chat, and more than half of them have to vote to stop the chat. Asking for a higher percentage than 40% of the citizenry is crazy, as our record is around 50%.

NOTE: I'm going to let the discussion run for another 2 days, then I'm planning to open up a poll with 5% increments from 15% to 50%. Then we'll have to have a runoff poll, I think.

Noldodan and Cheetah, it doesn't matter how many people are at the Turn Chat. That is a useless, misleading, and obviously confusing number. What matters is what percentage of our citizens (deemed the Will of the People) need to vote affirmatively on a T/C halt to end it prior to turn 10. It doesn't matter how many showed up at the chat, or who wore green, or anything of that nature. What matters is did enough people vote affirmatively to halt the chat to represent the Will of the People in DG5.

Also Noldodan, I noticed you decided to make your poll in increments of 5 from 15% to 50%. Nowhere was 15% mentioned. Even you originally proposed 20%. Are you trying to drop the average vote to help your cause? Sounds like a biased poll to me. How can you even suppose that 15% of the active citizens represents the WOTP? Actually, how can anything under 50% represent the will of the people. If you're claiming that the people who show up at the Chat are representitive of the entire DG5 population, you could be seen as right in some areas. But not in the sense of voting to give themselves power over the DP, of course they will vote for that. And that is what makes them not representitive of the entire population. Half the citizens want this measure to pass, half do not. Are you going to try and tell me that half the people who attend the Chat do not want the power to halt the Chat by their vote? Please... don't waste your time.

15%????? From an active citizenry of 20 people that make quorum 3 citizens. What have you been smoking and why aren't you sharing it???? "Hey let's get 3 people together and stop this chat!"

Christ, just using the number 10 as a quorum is better than this pipe dream you're proposing. At least that's realistic.

Cyc, you're going berserk. CALM DOWN! 15% was just to round out the options. If you're that against it, I won't put it in the poll. You're suggesting 50% of the active citizenry is a good number. But that's impossible. How many times have we had 50% at a turn chat? I think 30-35% is our average. But your harangue has changed my opinion: I think 30-35% (same as our average attendance) is a realistic limit.

:) Noldo, I'm not even excited. I'm just trying to express myself to you. I'm suprised you would attempt posting polls with options of this nature.

So you're new options for the next poll are 30% and 35%?

I Abstain, and am protesting that there is no abstain option.

Alright, Cyc, you're not excited if you say you aren't.;) And for poll options, I guess those are okay. It would be really great if a mod could post their opinion, *hint, hint.*

PS: Who are the contrarians who voted for a set number?

What it should be in incremental above a certain percentage.

WHen 35% of the active citizens are at the chat, it requires a vote OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of stoping the chat, Im talking somewhere around 85% of everyone in there. The percentage decreases as the number of participants approaches 100% of the active citizenry, at which point it should be 50%.

However, if the chatroom has below say 33% of the active citizenry, I dont see it being democratically viable for 1/6th (50% of 33%) to halt the chat.

I understand your concern, Immortal, about the percentage changing with the amount of people in the chat. But as I mentioned above, there really is no need to include a complex formula. Basically, as we average around 20 citizens a game, we're trying to decide if we want somewhere around 7 - 11 votes to halt a Chat.

So let's make the options 35%, 40%, 45%, and 50%. That should satisfy everyone. If 7 people got together and halted a Chat in a beligerent and stupid manner, it would label them, as Sarevok says.

And no, I'm not talking about the percentage of the people at the Chat. :rolleyes: I'm talking about the percentage of the average population as deemed by the Justice Dept. from the average of the votes in each election or the Presidential election.

Works for me, on all accounts.

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it seems like a lot over nothing. The only thing that matters is that people can stop a turnchat, not how many. There is no danger in stopping a turnchat unnecessarily. It just makes things take longer. The danger is in not doing so. So there should be no worries over five people conspiring to stop the chat, even though they aren't a majority. So they annoyed some people. Who cares? There should be worry about having a percentage of active (meaning forum active) citizenry for this that is larger than that in the chat. If only 20% attend, and 25% must consent, that's a problem.

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd. :p

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it seems like a lot over nothing. The only thing that matters is that people can stop a turnchat, not how many. There is no danger in stopping a turnchat unnecessarily. It just makes things take longer. The danger is in not doing so. So there should be no worries over five people conspiring to stop the chat, even though they aren't a majority. So they annoyed some people. Who cares? There should be worry about having a percentage of active (meaning forum active) citizenry for this that is larger than that in the chat. If only 20% attend, and 25% must consent, that's a problem.

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd. :p
saying other ppl dont count? there has to be a mix, a compromise....im still not sure exactly though...
if ppl dont join the turnchat, that doesnt mean they become de-citizenized during the turnchat....

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd. :p

Well, duh...(I've been saying that alot lately). What you're proposing is that a minute fraction of the forum population (you say 5) be allowed to wrestle control of a major part of the game away from the person that the whole forum elected.

Why should 5 people at the forum be able to tell the rest of the Demogame, "Shove it, People! We contol the playing of the game, not the person you elected to do it. Why should we, the Holy Turn Chat goers respect your opinion? We conrol this game."

Ya see? You just don't have the right to trash the person we elected to play the game like that. Now if you want to follow the rules and CC the President, then fine. Do it. If you want to run against that person for the right to play the game, fine. Do it. Those are your rights.

But if you just want to be a laid back Chat Goer, forget about doing the DP's job and let them do it. ;)

So now that we've got that settled... I'm going to post the poll on the actual percentages after this poll finishes, as a formality. And now that we've narrowed down the percentage of how many people have to be there, I going to run this one past everyone: Is having a simple majority vote if the number of Citizens at the chat is within the percentage okay?

NO. You haven't listened to a thing I've said, have you. This is the kind of thing that keeps me out of the game. :rolleyes:

What do you mean "Now that we've got that settled...."?

This majority vote if a number of citizens show up is not what we've been talking about. The percentage is of the total average citizen population. The number of citizens that show up at the chat is a stupid way of looking at it.

NO Noldodan, majority within the turn chat means absolutely nothing. It requires a percentage of the current census.

Proposed Part 2 Poll:
What kind of the citizenry should be used for the percentage needed to halt a chat?
-Percentage of those active in forum
-Percentage of those active at the turnchat
-Abstain

Or something like that.

Again, the problem as I see it is overreacting. "Shove it, People! We contol the playing of the game, not the person you elected to do it. Why should we, the Holy Turn Chat goers respect your opinion? We conrol this game." That is no where near what halting a turnchat says. Halting a turnchat means that the game stops, temporarily. It does not mean that any action that actually changes the game. It means we'll found Tokyo on Thursday instead of Monday. It does not mean the chatgoers are in charge. It means the public, rather than the chatgoers, actually have another chance to articulate themselves. It lets them say Tokyo is going to be founded in the wrong place. Stopping the chat arbitrarily is annoying, but harmless. The chat will resume.

A far more dangerous problem than too few being needed is too many. What if someone declares war unexpectedly, and the DP doesn't think its necessary to stop? The chatgoers might disagree, but they still might only add up to 5%, which would be lower than the number needed. So the game goes on. The chatgoers and the DP fight a war, which the people have no say in. Now, isn't that worse than delaying turn 6 till tuesday, while the people can get more of a say in the meantime? ;)

NO. You haven't listened to a thing I've said, have you. This is the kind of thing that keeps me out of the game. :rolleyes:

What do you mean "Now that we've got that settled...."?

This majority vote if a number of citizens show up is not what we've been talking about. The percentage is of the total average citizen population. The number of citizens that show up at the chat is a stupid way of looking at it.
I'll answer the second paragraph first: I meant the poll options, i.e 35-50%. And I do think I actually understand what you're saying: That what these percentages should be is what %age of the active citizenry has to vote for stopping the chat. Well, you know what this means: YET ANOTHER POLL! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94259)

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.



It is this approach that causes me to be forever against any kind of turn chat power for the attendees.

The active citizenry in this game is the forums NOT the turn chat.

A far more dangerous problem than too few being needed is too many. What if someone declares war unexpectedly, and the DP doesn't think its necessary to stop?

I agree with your point, but it seems to me the solution doesn't solve the problem. What if the five chat goers decide to agree with DP? We just went to war, and the vast majority of citizens have nothing to say, do, or contribute to it.

I say solve the problem directly. Make a list of events in which the chat must stop by law. It has worked great in previous demogames, and moving away from that is the cause of all this fear of evil DP's.