Initiative 2 - Playing the Save

First before anyone gets ticked off, this is a debate not an argument. I abhor extreme positions ("always" and especially "never"), so it is my nature to try to find a convincing counter to any such extreme position.

ravensfire said:

Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

Ultimately, we, the citizens are responsible for the actions of those we elect, even their bad ones. If we don't bother to adequately review what's been posted, we can only blame ourselves.

Click to expand...

We decide to trade a tech for a tech plus 100 gold. The instruction is written that way. At the time the trade is done in-game, the other civ has 150 gold and is willing to give it. How does changing it silence anyone -- the citizens want to do the trade, right? It's better for us to get more money, right? Who does that extra 50 gold hurt?

There are countless other ways that the in-game action might deviate slightly from the literal meaning of the posted instructions, in ways that were impossible to predict. Your choices are:

1. Stop play to change the instructions
2. DP decides, alone, to improve what needs improving -- thereby risking a CC.
3. We allow the person we elected to make decisions about the area change it (if present).
4. Play as is, and get a subpar, possibly losing, result.

Option 1 can kill the whole game if done too often.
Option 2 is fine for strong DP's -- I'll vote not guilty and hope a majority follows.
Option 3 is optimal for me. The end result is a psychological negative for a (very IMO) small minority and a plus for everyone else. The average citizen who isn't hung up about being "silenced" wakes up the next morning and says "wow, we got an extra 50 gold!"
Option 4 is just plain ugly, and the easy way to keep it from happening is to elect DPs who will choose option 2.

I've talked only about minor changes. Major changes should be illegal, and I would like to see those present at the chat (if any) be allowed to demand a stop if game conditions depart significantly from what we expected.

Simple counter to your arguement -

Trade instructions: Trade X to Z for best possible deal.

Done. I'll take option 5 - better instructions.

I suspect that nearly every situation you can come up with can be handled by correctly worded instructions. The fault lies with leader posting excessively binding instructions. Again, nothing in the Constitution being ratified or in any previous rule in any previous DG prohibits an official from giving the DP leeway.

The choice about what leeway is given and where belongs with the official, not the DP.

-- Ravensfire

I agree that better instructions are a partial counter. Perfect officials would be nice to have, but we don't really know until after they're elected.

Many people have used the vague instruction method to leave everything up to the DP. Sadly, few citizens have stepped in to do anything about it.

It doesn't address what to do if we don't get better instructions. The point of what I'm asking for is a safety net. I accept the stipulation that we don't want that safety net to be activated all the time, or for it to be used as a crutch. It pains me greatly to have a system which does not account for exceptions.

I'm with Ravensfire, better instructions...

Trade Tech for tech and 100 gold + anything else the AI is willing to offer...

Then you've got the reverse, AI now only has 50 gold.... well... the official messed up... since normally we do trade at start of the session...
The official can also state, accept nothing less then tech A for tech B... allowing for the DP to add onto that anything else that the AI is willing to offer.

EDIT:
As stated previously I'm essentially for 3... but that's under the stipulation that the official does give good instructions and any requests in chat are minimal in their impact, ie. your case would be included in that. So I'll take 5-3 with a willingness to accept just 5...

Once again, where is the accountability for the DP that either botches the save or fails to leave an adequate summary?

I'm fine with the DP being given non binding advice in the chat provided that whatever is posted in the instruction thread is followed, no exceptions. If something is not posted in the instruction thread, the DP may choose what to do, and may listen to the advice of those in the chat, but he/she should be under no obligation to listen. And DaveShack, of your posted options, I would choose Option 4.

Also we should have a set time before a chat that instructions must be posted for them to be binding, posting instructions 20 minutes before the chat gives nobody time to review them. I am not sure on what the time should be, it depends on whether we do a continuous play system or not.

Black_Hole said:

And DaveShack, of your posted options, I would choose Option 4.

Click to expand...

Even if it means losing the game? Think settler that can't be guarded because the designated escort won't get there for two turns, or missing out on a critical resource because the X on the map is one square off where it should be. Things that can be fixed, without discussion, by waiting 2 turns or moving the settlement by one square. Things that would get 100% of the vote if we stopped and polled it. The kinds of things that send the SG, GOTM, HOF type players running in horror because we are so obsessive about never deviating from instructions.

IMO option 2 is the best thing to do.
But I know that if I would be DP, I might not have the courage to do so.

dutchfire said:

IMO option 2 is the best thing to do.
But I know that if I would be DP, I might not have the courage to do so.

Click to expand...

Profiles in Courage

Well... sometimes in Politics, you gotta do what you gotta do...

I still agree with Option 5 the most though...

Maybe someone can take on the role of Gnome for our budding civ -- "Enforcer of the good instructions guarantee".



How close are we to polling this? We now have 55 people in the user group!

Donovan Zoi said:

Once again, where is the accountability for the DP that either botches the save or fails to leave an adequate summary?

Click to expand...

DP Manager (if they want to remove the person out of the pool).
Judiciary.

Honestly, I don't know what else could be done. Any suggestions?

(Version .1 of initiative)
NOTE - this does not account for the continous play proposal, and some changes may be needed if that approach is adopted.

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

Section 1
The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

--------
Change log
v.0

• Posted

v.1

• Clarified officials not posting instructions give all authority to DP under all circumstances.
• Added clause about citizen comments and advice

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

DP Manager (if they want to remove the person out of the pool).
Judiciary.

Honestly, I don't know what else could be done. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

I saw your revisions in the other thread, Ravensfire. That's good enough for me. Thanks!

This seems sensible. I approve of it...

Do we have a mechanism for if instructions conflict, though? does that leave it at DP's discretion? Or will there be some sort of pecking order (Earlier instructions are more valid as they have received more review, or President trumps Minister of Domestic affairs, who trumps Minister of roading, who trumps Mayor of Suchandsuchville)

Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

once an official is elected, is the opinion of the majority required, or just that of the officials and DP?

Welcome to the DG, jasonnorthrup, and to CFC!

jasonnorthrup said:

Classic reason - instructions issued in the chat silence the majority of players. I do not attend the chat, so instructions that are issued there are beyond my ability to view and comment on.

once an official is elected, is the opinion of the majority required, or just that of the officials and DP?

Click to expand...

Was that first paragraph intended to be a quote? Hitting the quote button at the bottom right of the post you're quoting will bring in the previous quote within [QUOTE=userid] [/QUOTE] tags. Then you can delete the parts which are not needed to make your point, and it will come out like this post, with the quote in a box. Not a big deal, just noticed you're new and might not have known how to do it.

As for your question, the way we're trying to set it up is a balance between official powers and the ability of mere citizens to stay involved. There have been a few historic incidents where an official or a DP (designated player) has made major decisions without getting proper citizen input. Some people are protective of their rights, while others advocate giving the officials a bit more leeway.

Is this ready for polling?

I won't complain if a poll opens before the Constitution is ratified, as long as it doesn't close before ratification. Anyone who does complain can expect persuasion.

Just kidding about the part, persuasion will be gentle.

DaveShack said:

Is this ready for polling?

Click to expand...

No - need resolution of how we're playing. Continuous or traditional. This is setup for traditional, but may need to be tweaked for Continuous.

Gotta get those core decisions made before finalizing the related matters.

-- Ravensfire

I'd suggest no decision == status quo ante.

If someone wants to change to continuous, that someone needs to push the idea into an initiative.

(Version .2 of initiative)
NOTE - this does not account for the continous play proposal, and some changes may be needed if that approach is adopted.

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

Section 1
The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined.

Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

Citizens may post instructions based on the results of completed initiatives. These instructions must be posted at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.

--------
Change log
v.0

• Posted

v.1

• Clarified officials not posting instructions give all authority to DP under all circumstances.
• Added clause about citizen comments and advice.

v.2

• Added clause explicitly permitting citizens to post instructions based on completed initiatives.
• Minor reformatting for clarity.

STATUS: Holding
Need for the constitution to be ratified (Feb 08), and for Continuous/Turn based to be resolved. How we're conducting the game sessions probably needs to be in here.

No offense, DS, but we've gotten ourselves in way too much trouble in the past by making assumptions, and going with status quo ante. This time, let's do it right, and get those questions asked and answered at the beginning. And no, I'm not going to ask the question. I've driven enough DG's; others need to stop up and push.

-- Ravensfire