Citizen's Initiative - The Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC

Do you approve of this initiative

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
ravensfire

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
Citizens,

This initiative provides guidance, instruction and requirements for playing the Civ 4 game save. It has been discussed in this thread.

Do you approve of this initiative?
Yes - You approve of this initiative
No - You object to this initiative
Abstain - You have no preference

Citizen's Initiative - The Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC

Section 1 - Instructions

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. All sessions, including special sessions, must have an instruction thread.

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.

If an instruction thread has not been created for a scheduled game session when a citizen is ready to post instructions, that citizen may create a instruction thread for that session.

Section 2 - Playing

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.

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 halt 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.
Click to expand...

Settings:
Public poll
Single choice
Poll expiration: 4 days

Interpretation: If there are more Yes votes than No votes at the close of the poll, the initiative is accepted.

-- Ravensfire
 
Edits made:
-- Link to discussion poll corrected.
-- Word changed from "hold" to "halt" in phrase "until a posted instruction says to halt the session"

Sorry!

-- Ravensfire
 
Not sure how to vote on this one. The two things I don't like are 1) requiring an instruction thread for each game play session (since this would be a royal pain for continuous play) and 2) letting the DP play as long as he wants to.

I'm not prepared to vote for this yet hesitate to vote against it. I'd really like to abstain but have my abstension count when determining whether or not a majority has voted for this initiative. If abstain will not be counted then I'll most likely vote no. It is too bad we have not yet make some of these decisions.
 
donsig said:
I'm not prepared to vote for this yet hesitate to vote against it. I'd really like to abstain but have my abstension count when determining whether or not a majority has voted for this initiative. If abstain will not be counted then I'll most likely vote no. It is too bad we have not yet make some of these decisions.
Click to expand...

There is another option: vote yes, and then draft and poll another initiative which addresses the points you're concerned with. :)
 
Sounds good to me. We can still have the "unwritten rule" of 10 turns per "turnchat". I voted yes even though I'd still like to see some cap, like 20 turns.
 
I voted no because of the time limit and it made me worry that there would be some one who gets a long time as dp. There should be like a 20 turn limit and an ability to have a vote of no confidence if people disagree with an choice made by a dp who makes a poor choice when an official soes not post instructions.
 
DaveShack said:
There is another option: vote yes, and then draft and poll another initiative which addresses the points you're concerned with. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know but I really don't want to see us getting into polling wars. I'm not even sure we have a proper mechanism in place for tracking which initiatives are current. And in reality my vote may be swayed by how others vote. If my vote means little (if there is strong support one way or another) then, well, my vote means little. ;) If the vote is close I'll have to do some soul searching and try to choose wisely.

For the record, I am strongly opposed to plurality decisons and even more strongly opposed to interpretation clauses in polls. We need one clear, objective and fair mechanism for knowing when an initiative (or other forum poll) has been passed. The best way to do that is to mandate a larger than 50% vote using the percentages listed in the forum results - and yes this includes abstain.
 
donsig,

I saw zero effort being made towards continuous play, even after some direct prompting. The proposed poll was out there for 2 days.

If nobody is putting any effort towards continuous play after a week, I consider that a dead issue. Sorry if you otherwise, but honestly, if you wanted it, you needed to push it.

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
If nobody is putting any effort towards continuous play after a week, I consider that a dead issue. Sorry if you otherwise, but honestly, if you wanted it, you needed to push it.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough but I only have so much time and that was devoted recently to the HoF mod issue. And I would like to point out that the rule could have been written in such a way as to ensure there was always an active instruction thread without requiring one for every session. For what it's worth if the vote is close I think I would vote for this rather than against it, since the two points I don't like can be repolled if there is a problem. If it isn't close I will abstain. I think most of my pre-start efforts will be devoted to fair polling issues. (And I hope you'll also be active in that arena.)
 
I think it would take someone about 10 minutes to transform this initiative into a continuus play based initiative if the need arises.
 
Generally good, so I give my support.
 
The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to halt the session
Click to expand...
I figure this means that the DP is limited in how long they play by the instructions? Or even that the appropriate official could say to play "only for 5 turns"?
 
Or more complex:

Stop when:
  • We meet another civ
  • War is declared on us
  • 10 turns have been played
 
Furius said:
But if the orders fail to mention that, the DP could theoretically play the entire game?
Click to expand...

This clause "The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions" is there to prevent that.

Ultimately, the length of the session is limited through a combination of factors. The session stops when the first of those factors applies - does the DP want to stop, does an instruction say stop or have we run out of instructions.

From a practical view, given the demands of logging, it would be highly amusing to see someone try to play even the entire game. The last DG of Civ3 was a modified 5CC - 5 cities + 1 captured city from each opponent. In part, that was to help ease the long sessions from the later terms. We still had sessions that took 4-5 hours long, especially during several of our continental wars (ahh, the memories!).

Game sessions are tough on the DP. You've got people in the chat heckling, demanding and distracting (if it's on-line), logging the events of the game and trying to keep a summary. As if that's not enough, you've got vague instructions, contradictory instructions and some that just plain aren't there. And woe be to the DP that doesn't kowtow to the chat regulars - though shalt be castigated, tarred and feathered if you do! Ask Blackbird about that one. (grumbles about short-sighted citizens)

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
And woe be to the DP that doesn't kowtow to the chat regulars - though shalt be castigated, tarred and feathered if you do! Ask Blackbird about that one. (grumbles about short-sighted citizens)
Click to expand...

Chat regulars didn't really have anything to do with Blkbird being denied a DP slot. That was a result of insulting the idiots a few too many times, primarily in the form of angry responses to requests for information about the turns, and a somewhat overly analytical approach.

However, we should post an etiquette guide so the chat regulars don't rise up this game. ;)
 
DaveShack said:
Chat regulars didn't really have anything to do with Blkbird being denied a DP slot. That was a result of insulting the idiots a few too many times, primarily in the form of angry responses to requests for information about the turns, and a somewhat overly analytical approach.

However, we should post an etiquette guide so the chat regulars don't rise up this game. ;)
Click to expand...

In part, yes, but the active campaign against him primarily went after his use of off-line sessions. He was unapologetic about his preference. While his attitude would have made his selection close, the people campaigning against him soley for off-line chats put it over the edge.

-- Ravensfire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-86) God of the Sun Tweak Proposals
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
Nizef
TSG 267 Announcement
Replies
6
Views
760
Rhodro
R
Nizef
  • Sticky
TSG 269 Announcement
Replies
18
Views
1K
Megalou
Megalou
Recursive
Update on the Voting for Session #6 (& Cheating Discovery)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Nizef
TSG 265 Announcement
Replies
6
Views
853
Ecocrexis
E
Back
Top Bottom