[DG2] - Offline sessions for "special circumstances"

This poll is to determine if citizen approval is required for play sessions to be scheduled offline when special circumstances, to be defined later (if any), are present.

Question: Should citizen approval be required for play sessions to be scheduled offline, when special circumstances exit?

Yes, citizen approval should be required
No, citizen approval should not be required
Abstain

A yes vote means that citizen approval of some kind is required. Citizen approval could mean citizens must vote in advance for the session to be offline, or it could mean a veto mechanism where offline sessions are assumed to be approved unless vetoed, or it could mean some other approval mechanism decided upon by the people. The decision of which mechanism to use would be made in a future discussion and poll, if this option wins.

A no vote means that no citizen approval would be needed to play a session offline when special circumstances are present.

=====================================
There is a companion poll to this one, located here, asking the question if citizen approval is required for offline sessions at the DP's discretion. This poll affects only play sessions which are subject to special circumstances, if any.

An earlier poll and discussion on this question can be found here.

This poll will be open for 4 days, is public, and the highest vote total will prevail. The result will be used for drafting the rules, which are subject to further ratification prior to play commencing.

=====================================
"Special circumstances" is a dangling term which has not been defined. This poll would only have an effect if some action is taken by the citizens to define what circumstances trigger its use. We could have delayed this poll until such circumstances are defined, but it seemed easier, at least to me, to ask both of the citizen approval questions at the same time.

For reference, here is an incomplete list of some things we might want to consider as special circumstances. This represents my opinion, not the result of discussion on the matter.

0 or 1 turn sessions for a variety of reasons, possibly including

• To make peace, and see what options are possible post-treaty
• To declare war, and see what changes we need to make as a result
• To execute a trade and advance the turn, to see whether our opponents will consider the next trade
• To stop trade, close or open borders, or otherwise affect the diplomatic situation, and analyze the resulting changes prior to continuing.
• To perform a spy mission and analyze its results
• To change religions or civics, and analyze results of the change.

Citizens Approval must be considered for special circumstances. Personaly, I dont see the point in these little 0-1 turn sessions when they can be accomidated in a regular turn session.

CivGeneral said:

Citizens Approval must be considered for special circumstances. Personaly, I dont see the point in these little 0-1 turn sessions when they can be accomidated in a regular turn session.

Click to expand...

The point would be to allow those of us who do not attend the *shutter* chats to participate in making decisions based on what is learned during those ittle 0-1 turn sessions. This is supposed to be a forum based democracy game.

I have requested authority to vote in these polls (finally). My request was made a couple of days ago, but still no answer. None the less...

"Special Circumstances" is a judgement call, people. Think about it realistically. Who's going to make the judgement of a "special circumstance"? Well I suppose if you let me make all the decisions, it wouldn't be so bad.... See what I mean? There needs to be a check and balance on the operations of the President/DP. This would be one of them.

By the way, donsig, you're correct. "to allow those of us who do not attend the *shutter* chats to participate in making decisions based on what is learned during those ittle 0-1 turn sessions."

Cyc, we can always specify what constitutes a special circunstance before (or even after) we begin play.

donsig said:

The point would be to allow those of us who do not attend the *shutter* chats to participate in making decisions based on what is learned during those ittle 0-1 turn sessions.

Click to expand...

I see it poinless since all it does is tie up the game and make it lag on longer. Personaly, I would be turned off to the Demogame if there are constant 0-1 turn sessions. I want to see a flowing Demogame, not a stop and go Demogame where we just play only 0-1 turn at these special circumstances.

donsig said:

This is supposed to be a forum based democracy game.

Click to expand...

However the plays should be done live and done so on a chatroom. Not played hidden away in which that there is a chance that the individual would screw up or ignore the procedures to halt the game when war has been declared on us. This is suppost to be a Combi Chat and Forum based democracy game. Eliminate the chat and you will alienate many people.

If these *shutter* Offline sessions happen for these so called "special circumstances" then the Citizens should deserve the right to approve or decline to have it hosted or not. The power lies in the People, not on one individual.

The word is shudder, people.

Let's remember where the 0-turn or 1-turn sessions came from in the first place. We're playing 10 turns, waiting 3-4 days, playing 10, waiting 3-4. Yes, I'm aware that donsig suggested play 2 turns every day, but for this discussion lets assume we're doing it the traditional way.

Let's use the consecutive trades example. Under the old method, we would play, wait 3-4 days, decide we want the results of a trade to be known, play and discover another trade after 1 turn, STOP, wait 3-4 days, play again. 21 turns in 9 days.

How we want 0-1 turn sessions to work is, play 10, discuss for a very short time (1-2 days), decide we want a trade, play the 1 turn, discuss for another short time (1-2 days), decide on another trade, play 10. 21 turns in 4 days (the offline session takes 0 days).

For now I am withholding my vote as I feel we should fit the policy to the circumstance.

However, with the 0-1 turn session, I would support either, no approval or veto power.

CivGeneral said:

Personaly, I would be turned off to the Demogame if there are constant 0-1 turn sessions.

Click to expand...

Allowing 0-1 turn sessions does not mean we'd have a constant flow of them. If I can live with the blasted chats then I think you can live with 0-1 turn sessions.

CivGeneral said:

I want to see a flowing Demogame, not a stop and go Demogame where we just play only 0-1 turn at these special circumstances.

Click to expand...

Then I can count on your support for playing two turns a day?

CivGeneral said:

However the plays should be done live and done so on a chatroom. Not played hidden away in which that there is a chance that the individual would screw up or ignore the procedures to halt the game when war has been declared on us.

Click to expand...

First of all we haven't even decided if we will have a procedure to halt the game if war is declared on us (not all of us worry too much about that possibility). Second, You just got done complaining that you don't want a stop and go demogame so why stop when war is declared? I would like to point out that it is entirely concievable for the turn player to screw up or ignore during a chat. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find historical examples of this happening.

CivGeneral said:

This is suppost to be a Combi Chat and Forum based democracy game. Eliminate the chat and you will alienate many people.

Click to expand...

No, this is supposed to be a forum based game. Using the chat alienates more people than getting rid of the chat would. Let's play one demogame without the stupid chat and see if participation withers away as you predict or remains high as I predict. Just try one game that way and if participation dries up I'll shut up about the chat and even start attending them again. Just try one game!

donsig said:

Then I can count on your support for playing two turns a day?

Click to expand...

No, because I see playing two turns a day too fast and frequently and hard for other posters, especialy if they have busy lives, to catch up. Unless you convince me that this a good idea, I would consider it.

Donsig said:

First of all we haven't even decided if we will have a procedure to halt the game if war is declared on us (not all of us worry too much about that possibility).

Click to expand...

Traditionaly the FAs or whatever department handles diplomacy traditionaly place in an absolute halt in their insturctions in the event a supprise war has been declared against us.

Donsig said:

Second, You just got done complaining that you don't want a stop and go demogame so why stop when war is declared?

Click to expand...

Because it gives us a chance to take it to the forum and discuss this new event that has came into the light after a civ declares war against us from out of the blue.

Donsig said:

I would like to point out that it is entirely concievable for the turn player to screw up or ignore during a chat. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find historical examples of this happening.

Click to expand...

We are all not machines, humans make mistakes as well. I am refering to such scenarios where the DP hyjacks the save and plays on after a "out of the blue war has been declared on us" dispite numerous cries to halt the chat.

Donsig said:

No, this is supposed to be a forum based game. Using the chat alienates more people than getting rid of the chat would. Let's play one demogame without the stupid chat and see if participation withers away as you predict or remains high as I predict. Just try one game that way and if participation dries up I'll shut up about the chat and even start attending them again. Just try one game!

Click to expand...

If the Demogame gets rid of the chat, you wont see me or any other people who support the chat whole heartly to be sticking around. I highly doubt that your prediction of a high parisipation rate of a chatless Demogame. I have been through a chatless Demogame (Demogame for Civ2) and its quite boring.

I fail to see your logical reasoning and rationality of a chatless Demogame. I came into the Demogame when they had the Turnchats inplace and I actualy had more fun. However as of recent months, I myself cannot attend turnchats due because its usualy held when I am busy doing other things away from my computer. Unless you can through a convincing argument, persuade me that removing the turnchats is benifical for someone in my RL situation where I could not even be in one turnchat while at the other hand see the turnchats as a tradition, then I would consider it. Untill then, I'll still support the turnchats.

CivGeneral said:

No, because I see playing two turns a day too fast and frequently and hard for other posters, especialy if they have busy lives, to catch up. Unless you convince me that this a good idea, I would consider it.

Click to expand...

Two turns a day is 60 turns a month. Two chats a week for four weeks at 10 turns per chats is 80 turns per week. My proposal is slower than the traditional approach. If some one is busy and misses a couple days he misses only 4 turns of action. That's not enough for major changes to happen. On the other hand if he has only a few minutes a day for the DG then he has something new everyday to respond to.

CivGeneral said:

Traditionaly the FAs or whatever department handles diplomacy traditionaly place in an absolute halt in their insturctions in the event a supprise war has been declared against us.

Click to expand...

We've also traditonally had long rules about mobilization every DG. Have we ever mobilized? Everyone is so afraid of a freaking surprise war and just what is the problem here that we have to stop play? I don't get it.

CivGeneral said:

We are all not machines, humans make mistakes as well. I am refering to such scenarios where the DP hyjacks the save and plays on after a "out of the blue war has been declared on us" dispite numerous cries to halt the chat.

Click to expand...

When has this ever happened? Surely you're not referring to DG3 T3 and the Great Aztec War? To anyone paying atttention that wasn't a surprise and it was established through our judicial system that the DP had the right to play the ten turns. The problem you all had with that situation was not the war out of the blue but the fact that you chatters were up against a DP who would not let you make decisions in the chat.

CivGeneral said:

If the Demogame gets rid of the chat, you wont see me or any other people who support the chat whole heartly to be sticking around. I highly doubt that your prediction of a high parisipation rate of a chatless Demogame. I have been through a chatless Demogame (Demogame for Civ2) and its quite boring.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to play a chatless DG then don't play CG. No one is forcing you. I'll bet right now that you would play. Why don't we try a chatless game and see which one of us is right? Was that game you point ot boring because it was chatless or because it was Civ 2? Even I haven't played Civ 2 in over a year.

CivGeneral said:

I fail to see your logical reasoning and rationality of a chatless Demogame... Unless you can through a convincing argument, persuade me that removing the turnchats is benifical for someone in my RL situation where I could not even be in one turnchat while at the other hand see the turnchats as a tradition, then I would consider it. Untill then, I'll still support the turnchats.

Click to expand...

You don't make sense CG. You just got done saying a chatless game is boring for you and now you say you can't attend chats. In effect that makes the game chatless for you. You're not bored? Look at the participation in the demogames. It was been steadily dwindling. We need to give up tradition and try something new or else give up the demogame.

donsig said:

Cyc, we can always specify what constitutes a special circunstance before (or even after) we begin play.

Click to expand...

Yes, if those circumstances are written in stone, the action already having been approved by the people, and any action done accepted and saved.

But I's still vote for citizen approval of any pre-turn or 1 turn session.

Citizen approval should not be required for the event, though there should be some sort of approval process for the action that would take place during such a session. However, if such an action is a no-brainer, then the session should be able to take place without delay so that a regular full session could commence on schedule.

CivGeneral said:

However the plays should be done live and done so on a chatroom. Not played hidden away in which that there is a chance that the individual would screw up or ignore the procedures to halt the game when war has been declared on us. This is suppost to be a Combi Chat and Forum based democracy game. Eliminate the chat and you will alienate many people.

Click to expand...

I have seen some pretty huge blunders happen right in front of the people at chat. Sins of ommission in the chat (I goofed but won't say anything....) are just as bad, or worse (!) than doing the same thing offline.

Effectively, this game that technically hasn't ended has been played without a chat a lot more than it has been played with a chat. My opinion is that one of the reasons activity fell off was that we didn't have chat attendence, though it could also be argued that activity falling off was the reason for low or no chats.

But that's not the focus of this thread. Please keep it on the topic of whether we want citizens to have to approve offline (usually short) sessions for predefined reasons.

donsig said:

Two turns a day is 60 turns a month. Two chats a week for four weeks at 10 turns per chats is 80 turns per week. My proposal is slower than the traditional approach. If some one is busy and misses a couple days he misses only 4 turns of action. That's not enough for major changes to happen. On the other hand if he has only a few minutes a day for the DG then he has something new everyday to respond to.

Click to expand...

Ok, you have my ear and attention on this and would give it some consideration.

Donsig said:

When has this ever happened? Surely you're not referring to DG3 T3 and the Great Aztec War? To anyone paying atttention that wasn't a surprise and it was established through our judicial system that the DP had the right to play the ten turns. The problem you all had with that situation was not the war out of the blue but the fact that you chatters were up against a DP who would not let you make decisions in the chat.

Click to expand...

DG3 T3 and the unGreat Aztec War is one of the events that I am refering to. The power lies in the people, not in one person.

Donsig said:

If you don't want to play a chatless DG then don't play CG. No one is forcing you. I'll bet right now that you would play. Why don't we try a chatless game and see which one of us is right?

Click to expand...

What is it that makes you think that I would play, Dispite a chatless game.?

Donsig said:

Was that game you point ot boring because it was chatless or because it was Civ 2? Even I haven't played Civ 2 in over a year.

Click to expand...

It was boring because the Civ2 Demogames were chatless and did not realy get into it.

Donsig said:

You don't make sense CG. You just got done saying a chatless game is boring for you and now you say you can't attend chats. In effect that makes the game chatless for you. You're not bored? Look at the participation in the demogames. It was been steadily dwindling. We need to give up tradition and try something new or else give up the demogame.

Click to expand...

My situation that prevents me from attending the turn chats is something that I cannot control due to events that are happening in RL such as finishing up my last semester in College. I did not chose not to attend the turnchats, but my RL situation prevents me from attending them.

CivGeneral said:

What is it that makes you think that I would play, Dispite a chatless game.?

Click to expand...

I think that for two reasons: 1) you stayed involved even though you can't attend chats and 2) you are involved in this discussion and we're not having any chats.