Initiative 2 - Playing the Save

To go along with the first initiative, here's one on actually playing the save, maintaining a log of actions. Like the first initiative, the text is from a previous DG (C3DGVII), and is supposed to be clear and easy to read.

MOST RECENT VERSION LOCATED HERE

Citizen's Initiative 2 - The Playing the Save Act

NOTE - This version is outdated

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.

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.

-- Ravensfire

A.) I can see people arguing over the what constitutes as "detailed", especially in the last section. So we need to be careful with that wording, and decide if we want to declare some more clean cut minimum guidelines...

B.) for "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." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

Before commenting on this I'd like to know where we stand on the continuous play proposal. (That is a proposal to play a small fixed amount of turns on a daily basis.) If we're going to try that then the wording for this proposal would have to be changed significantly.

Falcon02 said:

A.) I can see people arguing over the what constitutes as "detailed", especially in the last section. So we need to be careful with that wording, and decide if we want to declare some more clean cut minimum guidelines...

Click to expand...

That's going to have to be somewhat fuzzy - how do you define detailed? I'll go with the obscenity definition - I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.

B.) for "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." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

Click to expand...

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.

-- Ravensfire

donsig said:

Before commenting on this I'd like to know where we stand on the continuous play proposal. (That is a proposal to play a small fixed amount of turns on a daily basis.) If we're going to try that then the wording for this proposal would have to be changed significantly.

Click to expand...

Yup!

Are you going to push on that idea?

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

.... that's exactly what I was trying to get at... I wanted to make sure that that was clarified in the text.

Like I was trying to say, the DP being given authority, includes the official not posting instructions but still attending any chat session that might be held.

Sorry for any confusion...

Falcon02 said:

Sorry for any confusion...

Click to expand...

Bleh - my end. Stupid freakin' cold. My apologies!

EDIT: And it's a good thing to clarify, I'll change that in a future revision.

Timetable wise - this needs to wait for various issues (see donsig's comment) to be cleared up, plus the Constitution needs to be ratified. An initiative passed before the constitution?

-- Ravensfire

Falcon02 said:

B.) for "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." I might add a clause which states that this includes if the official is present for a chat session that might be held during the game session.

Click to expand...

ravensfire said:

No. Period.

If an official can't be bothered to post instructions, they lose their chance. They can suggest to the DP, but we cannot reward officials for failing to give citizens time to review instructions, even if it's just an hour. That's a tremendous amount of leeway they get.

Click to expand...

I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.

I say if the offical hasnt posted instructions. Then The designated player can do as they choose. And then afterwards if something crazy happens someone can do a CC against the offical.

DaveShack said:

I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.

Click to expand...

Post a second initiative overriding this one. That's the nice thing about donsig's system - you can try things, and if it's not working, change it quickly.

-- Ravensfire

DaveShack said:

I think this is an issue which will need to be polled, after more people are here, and after they are fully informed by both sides.

Click to expand...

There really was no disagreement between Genral Falcon02 and Ravensfire if you read the later posts. I fully support the clause denying officials the right to give orders during the chat.

donsig said:

There really was no disagreement between Genral Falcon02 and Ravensfire if you read the later posts. I fully support the clause denying officials the right to give orders during the chat.

Click to expand...

I know that, just as you know I'm referring to my disagreement.

Maybe y'all will start listening if some order gets us into a dangerous situation and we suffer a major loss in-game because the instruction can't be changed. Perhaps an object lesson can be arranged.

DaveShack said:

I know that, just as you know I'm referring to my disagreement.

Maybe y'all will start listening if some order gets us into a dangerous situation and we suffer a major loss in-game because the instruction can't be changed. Perhaps an object lesson can be arranged.

Click to expand...

I can grant an allowance for "slight" instruction modifications during a chat, IF AND ONLY IF that official posts detailed isntructions pre-chat to be modified slightly.

But if an official fails to post detailed instructions in time, nothing that official says during the game session is legally binding to the DP.

I've never been in favor of letting a deadbeat official ignore the forum and then just show up at a chat and start pushing the DP around.

What I do want covered is the ability to change things like troop movements if a battle goes better or worse than expected, act on obvious new trade opportunities (we know that we want to acquire Iron Working, meet a new civ on turn 2 who are willing to trade it for something with even beakers), and react to new situations like a new contact asking us to stop trading with an old one.

The traditional reply to what I've just said is let the DP make those decisions, to which I have always responded, two (or more) heads are better than one. Unless we're going to restrict DP duties to Deity level players.

And I really don't want to stop the play session two turns in just so we can take 3 days to run a poll which is expected to get 100% approval. My opinion is that too many of those situations caused at least some of the decline of DG1. Should we stop play when it's a real question that will get real debate? Absolutely!

Both ends of the spectrum are bad. We don't want to leave an opening where every decision can be made during a chat. But equally so, we don't want to limit it so much that no decision can be made.

DaveShack said:

What I do want covered is the ability to change things like troop movements if a battle goes better or worse than expected, act on obvious new trade opportunities (we know that we want to acquire Iron Working, meet a new civ on turn 2 who are willing to trade it for something with even beakers), and react to new situations like a new contact asking us to stop trading with an old one.

Click to expand...

This is what I have in mind when I said slight modifications...

What I don't want to see is an official to post, say completely reverse their instructions, or to have instructions so vague, but that concider "detailed" that they give the majority of they're instruction in a chat session.

An interesting problem though, is what is "slight" and what is "major"?

Would a major decision at the last minute, "oh there's a stack of doom to our west, should postpone declaring war until we deal with that!!"

The war may still be inpending, but we just want to buy some more time to ensure we're ready for that SoD...

I am against anyone giving instructions to the DP in the chat, NO MATTER WHAT

Black_Hole said:

I am against anyone giving instructions to the DP in the chat, NO MATTER WHAT

Click to expand...

Well, if you want "ANYTHING" in a chat to not be legally binding, I'm fairly okay with that.

So long as people in a chat are not "banned" from voicing their opinion and giving the DP advice.

I'd hate to see a DP miss something in the forums which would have otherwise been brought to his attention by a participant in a chat. But for fear of the legal ramifications the person in the chat kept his/her mouth shut.

Similarly for when a DP is unsure or wants advise about details which are left up to him.

These are my main concerns when trying to allow for some instruction.

Falcon02 said:

So long as people in a chat are not "banned" from voicing their opinion and giving the DP advice.

Click to expand...

Strongly agree with this. There is no reason, during an on-line chat, for the citizens not to comment on what's going on, and offer advice. Likewise, the DP should feel comfortable seeking advice and suggestions, and then making their decision, even if it's completely opposite of those at the chat. Note, however, there's a difference between advice, and instructions. Instructions come from the instruction thread. Advice comes from citizens.

I do hope that our leader post instructions that do give leeway, and might even ask the DP to "If X happens, adjust routes as deemed best." That's rarely happened, and yet has always been acceptable under ALL DG rules.

EDIT: Added a missing "not" to second sentance.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

There is no reason, during an on-line chat, for the citizens to comment on what's going on, and offer advice.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're missing a not in this statement, for it to match up with the rest of the post.

Restated in a more positive voice:

There is no reason, during an on-line chat, to prohibit the citizens from commenting on what's going on, and offering advice.

=====================================================================
I see all the positions against changing instructions, and really don't understand. If an instruction is wrong for the current state of the game, there is a simple choice to be made. Fix it and move on, or stop the session. Stopping definitely harms the game because it slows the game, and people definitely get bored when we go too slowly, and they definitely leave when they get bored. I have yet to see a single instance, ever, when changing a wrong instruction or even ignoring / disobeying one, did any real damage to the game. At worst, an individual ego might be bruised.

If someone could offer tangible evidence of actual damage, then I'd certainly consider whether that balances the obvioius damage from stopping all the time.

DaveShack said:

I'm pretty sure you're missing a not in this statement, for it to match up with the rest of the post.

Click to expand...

Yup - correcting it ...

If someone could offer tangible evidence of actual damage, then I'd certainly consider whether that balances the obvioius damage from stopping all the time.

Click to expand...

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.

NO INSTRUCTIONS DURING THE CHAT.

-- Ravensfire