Poll Question - In halting a Turn Chat prior to turn 10, what should be required to represent the Will of the People?

1. A certain percentage of the Demogame citizenry

2. A certain percentage of the people at the chat

The Narative Paragraph:
This poll is designed to help us determine what kind of parameters are to be used when a vote has been called to halt a chat. In this *link*discussion*link* these two options are hotly debated. Should a certain percentage of the total citizenry be used to represent the will of the people, or should a certain percentage of the people at the chat be used to represent the will of the people. This poll does not include any kind of sliding scale for option #2, such as if "X" amount of people are at the chat, then "X" amount of votes are required. This poll will remain open for 5 days.

Well, the phrasing is certainly better than it was in my poll. You have my commendation. But there is one clarification/argument/addition that I would like to make, and I would like you to keep it in mind for this poll, and for possible future ones: unless they show up, the entire Demogame citizenry cannot vote to stop the chat. So why should we make the vote to stop the chat be based on the number of those who may or may not be at the chat?

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this poll. I went off and did other things.

In answer to your question, Noldodan, 1. it is poossible for the entire Demogame population to show up at the chat and possibly be involved in a Chat halting vote and 2. the reason the voting parameter is based on the entire active population is because that is the number that we base the term "Will of the People" on. If you and I decided that the WOTP was based on our (yours and mine) opinion, then we could base the voting parameter around our two votes and it would be a pretty simple matter. But everyone actively involved in DG5 will contribute to the WOTP, therefore something as important as halting the play of the game should not be left up to a small group at the chat, but based on the WOTP. As the WOTP is based on the active citizenry, the voting parameters for halting the play of the game should be based on the number of active citizens (or a percentage thereof).

Once again, I would like to point out that this entire argument is overblown. Stopping a chat is annoying, but nothing more. Far worse is the inability to stop the chat, such as in DG3T3.

Normally I am a populist, but the concept of having a percentage of total citizenry to do it is insane. If there is a quorum in the chat (but not the DP), that could still be less than that percentage. So could a consensus (minus the DP). So the game would go on. Because chats can be scheduled inconviently, and you can't really know how many will be there, it is perfectly possible that the number of people at a chat is far below the number needed to halt it. Assuming the DP is a dissenter, this means the chat could go on despite a domino war. Having the game go on despite an unforseen occurance is far worse than having the chat end because five people needed to go to the bathroom. The chat will start up again later.

The people at the chat are, for all real purposes, the active citizenry, and they should make the dicision. Their abusing that power is no where near as bad as what would happen if they don't have it in the first place.

But everyone actively involved in DG5 will contribute to the WOTP, therefore something as important as halting the play of the game should not be left up to a small group at the chat, but based on the WOTP.
And how do we get everyone actively involved in DG5 to contribute to the decision to stop the chat? Ask them during the chat?

Once again, I would like to point out that this entire argument is overblown. Stopping a chat is annoying, but nothing more. Far worse is the inability to stop the chat, such as in DG3T3.

Normally I am a populist, but the concept of having a percentage of total citizenry to do it is insane. If there is a quorum in the chat (but not the DP), that could still be less than that percentage. So could a consensus (minus the DP). So the game would go on. Because chats can be scheduled inconviently, and you can't really know how many will be there, it is perfectly possible that the number of people at a chat is far below the number needed to halt it. Assuming the DP is a dissenter, this means the chat could go on despite a domino war. Having the game go on despite an unforseen occurance is far worse than having the chat end because five people needed to go to the bathroom. The chat will start up again later.

The people at the chat are, for all real purposes, the active citizenry, and they should make the dicision. Their abusing that power is no where near as bad as what would happen if they don't have it in the first place.
then a small group of ppl in the chat want the dp to do something, for example:
the FA has instructions against war, then 5 ppl get together and decide to stop the chat, unless the dp declares war.... this could constantly happen and we would either get nowhere or instructions would be useless
i would say, either 35% of the citizenry or 75 % of the chat attendates, mayb those need to be modified...

Epimethius and Black_Hole, I think you're both off on the circumstances where this law is intended to be used. Epimethius, I don't think we would ever have someone be quite that dictatorial, not even donsig came close. Black_Hole, while your scenario would be a bad situation, I highly doubt that could ever happen.

PS: Cyc, what's with the assumption that turn chats are scheduled to go to turn 10? IIRC, 10 was just used in late game as an arbitrary stop point.

PS: Cyc, what's with the assumption that turn chats are scheduled to go to turn 10? IIRC, 10 was just used in late game as an arbitrary stop point.

Noldo, if you read your history, you would know that the first game of the Demogame was when your virtual forefathers voted to limit turn chats to 10 turns. That practice has been debated and voted on during all the Demogames. 10 turns is the customary t/c length, as it is long enough to let sufficient history past (for something new to talk about), but not so long that too much history passes. 10 turns is the way it has always been. It's the smart way to go. If the DP chooses to end the t/c prior to 10 tens he may do so. If the DP seeks to go the full 10 turns, he may do so. If he makes himself look like an ass because he keeps going, he will pay for it, trust me. If you elect some fool to the Presidency that doesn't know when to halt a Turn Chat, you will pay for it. It's that simple.

PS: Cyc, what's with the assumption that turn chats are scheduled to go to turn 10? IIRC, 10 was just used in late game as an arbitrary stop point.

I know this question was not directed at me, but I would like to respond to it anyway.

For the last game and a half, there seems to exist the mindset that if a chat doesn't go to a full ten turns then it is deemed a failure. Past DPs have put themselves(and our nation) in questionable situations so that this holy grail may be reached every time.

Excuses for this behavior have been: people will lose interest if we move more cautiously, we don't want the game to last all year, we got caught up in the moment, we have calendar based terms so I(the DP) want to make the most of my time. As far as I am concerned, none of these "reasons" are for the benefit of our forum going citizens, yet our most vocal "friends of the forum" seem to have no problem with these excuses being used to disenfranchise them in certain cases. After all, the show must go on, and quickly.

Now don't get me wrong. There will always be times when the chat can go a full ten turns without issue. But for those other times, there should be some mechanism in place. Perhaps we should only allow a combination of both, in case of low turnout in the chat.

Say 30% of the active forum citizenry and 75% of the chat citizenry. This way it would take an almost unanimous outcry from those present at chat, but would still require a minimum of 30% of the entire active citizenry(let's call this the Forum Quorum ;) ). If only one of these criteria is met, then perhaps the DP should be obliged to stop at, say, Turn 5.

Another thing we could do is make this exact issue a part of the campaign. "If elected President, Mr. Candidate, how would you include citizens in the turnchat process?" Could add a whole new dynamic to the game if the people are still interested in a DG that even loosely reflects actual politics.

Then again, perhaps we just let the DP go unchecked, live with the consequences, and pray that the people don't make the same mistake the next time out. ;)

I can see the logic of, and support Donovan's suggestion on Forum Quorum

Abstain: why not let the DP decide to stop a chat? He is the designated player, and is chosen by the people to organise the turnchats.

I refuse to vote on either of these options as it is ridiculous either way.

ABSTAIN

To those who abstain from this poll: Keep in mind that according to the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93494) Citizens at the chat and the DP are both going to be able to halt the chat. It's in your best interest to vote for what you consider to be the lesser evil in this poll.

Say 30% of the active forum citizenry and 75% of the chat citizenry. This way it would take an almost unanimous outcry from those present at chat, but would still require a minimum of 30% of the entire active citizenry(let's call this the Forum Quorum ). If only one of these criteria is met, then perhaps the DP should be obliged to stop at, say, Turn 5. Gave this idea in the other thread, still think its a good idea.

My preferred solution would be a percentage of the people at the chat AND a percentage of a quorum, that is the larger number generated by these two methods. I would like to see 50% of the people at the chat AND 10% of quorum.

For example, if we have 40 citizens and 10 at the chat, then the forum component would require 4 votes (10% of quorum) and the chat component would require 5 votes (50% of in chat). Taking the larger number, 5 votes would be required to stop play.

OTOH if there are 40 citizens and 5 in chat, 4 votes are required by the forum component of the calculation and 3 votes by the chat component -- 4 would be required to stop play.

Since this option is not available, I voted a percentage of the people in the chat.

Of course you did DS. If you look at one of our polls with the largest vote count (28) you will be reminded that a 40 count registry doesn't mean a 40 count active citizenry. Let's say we have 28 citizens (which maybe a generous figure). That's 2.8 people (taking away the fractional people, we are now left with 2), and if there are 5 people in the chat, we would need 2.5 people (taking away the fractional people, we are now left with 2). Therefore, with your figures, we would only need two slightly stoned and overfed people to halt the chat. Great figures you have here.

To those who abstain from this poll: Keep in mind that according to the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93494) Citizens at the chat and the DP are both going to be able to halt the chat. It's in your best interest to vote for what you consider to be the lesser evil in this poll.
I personally think both of these choices are evil. I trust the DP less than the chat-people. I would rather have a set list of reasons to stop the chat. If something is on the list that is occuring, then there can be a vote to stop the TC.

I like Dave's idea, on the condition that, should the forum level be more than 75% of the chat component (which includes meaning less being are at the chat period than the forum componant) that component is invalid, leaving the chat one.

Personally, I don't see why the hell anyone cares, much less is so insistant that absentees be treated like they have a vote, when they don't.

It is, in my own opinion, the people at the chat that can halt the chat... Imagine: if it was the will of the citizenry, then we'd have to poll it for 2 days before having a decision. In two days, the chat would be halted anyway.

Of course you did DS. If you look at one of our polls with the largest vote count (28) you will be reminded that a 40 count registry doesn't mean a 40 count active citizenry.

Actually, I meant a census of 40, as in 40 active players. This is not totally out of the question, over the 2 full DG's I've played in, I have seen election totals of 40 votes. IIRC one hotly contested election ended up tied 20-20.

We also have a lot of chats where there are 10 or more people present.

The percentages I'm suggesting are actually a bit of a compromise to begin with. I'd really like it to stop if even one person wants to go have discussions, but agree that given the personalities involved, some kind of minimum is needed.

Personally, I don't see why the hell anyone cares, much less is so insistant that absentees be treated like they have a vote, when they don't.
I would like to draw attention to the second part of this. How many think that basing our voting on the number of people who may or may not be at the chat is a good idea?

With just over 12 hours to go, the vote is TIED. Come on, someone else, please vote! Or one of you abstainers, you could change your vote to what you consider the lesser evil.

By my book it has over 24 hours to go. :hmm: Are you using DaveShacks numbers? :lol: Just kidding.

I can't believw how polarized we are on this issue. Well, I guess I can, the numbers prove it. BTW, from what gert-janl posted, if he changed his vote from abstain, it would go to the first option. ;)

By my book it has over 24 hours to go. :hmm: Are you using DaveShacks numbers? :lol: Just kidding.

I can't believw how polarized we are on this issue. Well, I guess I can, the numbers prove it. BTW, from what gert-janl posted, if he changed his vote from abstain, it would go to the first option. ;)

Upon further analysis, it has been discovered that Noldodan was indeed using DaveShack time. I apologize.

24 hours left. I stand on my Abstain vote.

By my book it has over 24 hours to go. :hmm: Are you using DaveShacks numbers? :lol: Just kidding.


:rotfl:

OK, I was a math minor and can't resist finding statistical what-if's to support my cause, but messing with time -- never! :lol:

Well, 2 people have responded to the call for votes. Unfortunately, they voted for different options, so we are still left with a tie!

EDIT: Furiey voted while I was writing this post. Darn your timing! Darn it to Heck!

Don't worry - there's still time for it to be tied again :crazyeye:

Welcome back, Furiey! :thumbsup:

Welcome back :)

:lol: With just over 3 1/2 hours to go, the vote is once again tied at 9-9-5! If we don't get the vote in by then, what will we do? Stay tuned for more updates!

I voted for the 2nd option, the lesser of two evils. The first option has a problem to it, because the occasion can arise that something major happens and there are too few people present to actually stop the chat, and have to carry on, even if it means losing big time.
The second one has the possibility the only 1 citizen can decide for the whole community, but than again, the others had the possibility to be there.

In this respect I think option 2 is the better one, as it is allways applicible.

M.

Horray, logic has prevaled!

And now, with just over an hour to go, there is a 2-vote majority for option 2!

And... It's done. The people have spoken. Now we need to get on with the actual percentage. 50-70% seems to me like a good rangeto start discussion on.

I cite this poll as argument against a low number as 50%.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94134

That is 3 people.

Immortal, that poll is from last month during our discussion phase, when most of the people had gone until the start of DG5, and before our influx of new people.

Yes, but it is the only poll relevent to chat room numbers conducted thus far. And when the poll was conducted does not detract from how official it is.

Until another poll is held it must be taken as fact.