Should we Add the Sunshine Law to the Core Rules?
- Thread starter Bertie
- Start date
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Voting on gameplay decisions should be under the purview of Prime Faction to decide. Otherwise we can well end the Prime Faction already. Everyone should be able to open discussion threads at will, as has happened during the last terms with no problems, like Daveshack posting a city grid we all used for inspiration for settling the cities.
However, we will not see binding poll overrides to be done by citizens not members of the Prime Faction.
That is, only Prime Faction can put up official, binding polls (This is what Prime Faction is all about, otherwise we are back to Square One with the traditional ruleset, where everyone could post binding polls for anything at any single time via citizen polls).
This does not change for example complete control over build queues in Warlord City by any other than Warlords (we have a system for those living there voting over decisions for that city). It is a different kind of voting system from traditional, but still a voting system. Tech polls and major war declarations will now be polled here for all to see, but no polls to override micromanagement decisions (city administration, movement and promotion of units, land development and foreign relations except for war).
But I agree on the sentiment that all gameplay related must be posted here.
I would like a specification that the posting of voting polls affecting gameplay is for non-binding votes, then I would be ok with it, otherwise its just another disguised "Free override of official polls at any time" as under Traditional. If someone does not like the official or the government, they can either post a vote for non-confidence OR start a rebellion with another platform.
However, we will not see binding poll overrides to be done by citizens not members of the Prime Faction.
That is, only Prime Faction can put up official, binding polls (This is what Prime Faction is all about, otherwise we are back to Square One with the traditional ruleset, where everyone could post binding polls for anything at any single time via citizen polls).
This does not change for example complete control over build queues in Warlord City by any other than Warlords (we have a system for those living there voting over decisions for that city). It is a different kind of voting system from traditional, but still a voting system. Tech polls and major war declarations will now be polled here for all to see, but no polls to override micromanagement decisions (city administration, movement and promotion of units, land development and foreign relations except for war).
But I agree on the sentiment that all gameplay related must be posted here.
I would like a specification that the posting of voting polls affecting gameplay is for non-binding votes, then I would be ok with it, otherwise its just another disguised "Free override of official polls at any time" as under Traditional. If someone does not like the official or the government, they can either post a vote for non-confidence OR start a rebellion with another platform.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
To be more accurate, only the Prime Faction can decide how a poll is official and binding. Nothing stops a faction from allowing others to post binding polls.
Note that this law says NOTHING about - just that polls about gameplay decisions must be posted here, and that anyone can post a poll. It doesn't have to be binding poll, it just makes sure that we don't have a Prime Faction that foolishly tries to silence the citizens.
Nothing in this law covers what can and cannot be polled, how to run the polls, standards for the polls, etc. That is up to the Prime Faction to decide.
-- Ravensfire
Note that this law says NOTHING about - just that polls about gameplay decisions must be posted here, and that anyone can post a poll. It doesn't have to be binding poll, it just makes sure that we don't have a Prime Faction that foolishly tries to silence the citizens.
Nothing in this law covers what can and cannot be polled, how to run the polls, standards for the polls, etc. That is up to the Prime Faction to decide.
-- Ravensfire
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Fair enough, with those clarifications, I am actually fine with it.
Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
Hmm. I voted "no" in the end as the forum would be a nightmare of polls for small decisions... Where is the line between "must be polled" and "must not be polled"? Who to attack? Where to attacK? What units to promote for what? Scout moves? Settling? Buildorder? Where?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I think they understood we are not seeing spam micro-management polling what we saw before because of this. This is simply to poll all options for gameplay in here, not elsewhere.
This is by no means a carte blance to have poll overrides of promotions, city management and so on.
Right now, we are down to polling major tech routes (per session) and polling for war or not, the rest will be instruction based. This means there will be 1-3 polls per week or so for lurkers and casual players, but to get decisions made, you need to be elected in.
This is by no means a carte blance to have poll overrides of promotions, city management and so on.
Right now, we are down to polling major tech routes (per session) and polling for war or not, the rest will be instruction based. This means there will be 1-3 polls per week or so for lurkers and casual players, but to get decisions made, you need to be elected in.
AluminumKnight
Conquistador
I was about to vote yes, but then I saw Diamondeye's post. There is nothing in the law about some imaginary line telling us that giving promotions doesn't need to be polled but tech path needs to be polled. I just want to clarify, this law does not REQUIRE polls for gameplay decisions, but rather say that for any decision made, the method used to make that decision be made public, correct? So if, say, I (as Head of Faith) decided the build order for New Giruvegan, and posted it, explaining that I came up with it, that would be fine?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Yeah AK, thats what it means. Also be aware that with a different regime, we may risk have entire GOTM and HOF communities falling on our heads, and we would see singular troop moves, promotions and city builds polled and repolled, having multiple options polled all the time. But I think the intentions with the Sunshine Law are honorable and decent, as long as they are not seen as an invitation to poll anything on Earth, even within the Prime Faction mandate.
I think the core here is accountability. They want to know who did what decision when and where, so they know how to argue for a rebellion or not, based on failing performance of officials or disagreement with empowered officials. Its just that Sunshine Law does not begin to mess up the remainder of the game to a big degree, which is why this Law is merely for making us post all gameplay related in the forum, nowhere else, at least for being considered for policies to be implemented (people are of course free to discuss in their private forums, just make sure all decisions are made public here).
I think the core here is accountability. They want to know who did what decision when and where, so they know how to argue for a rebellion or not, based on failing performance of officials or disagreement with empowered officials. Its just that Sunshine Law does not begin to mess up the remainder of the game to a big degree, which is why this Law is merely for making us post all gameplay related in the forum, nowhere else, at least for being considered for policies to be implemented (people are of course free to discuss in their private forums, just make sure all decisions are made public here).
blastoidstalker
The Geographer
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 529
I am going to vote no on this and explain my reasons.
I believe this law should be present in faction rulesets and not the core rules.
I will vote for factions that put this in place but do not want it required.
Certain civics and factions lend themselves to different amounts of openess. I am talking less about despotism (as we have no other option) than about entering into a police state. I feel that a mandatory sunshine law in a Police State could be contradictory.
I believe this law should be present in faction rulesets and not the core rules.
I will vote for factions that put this in place but do not want it required.
Certain civics and factions lend themselves to different amounts of openess. I am talking less about despotism (as we have no other option) than about entering into a police state. I feel that a mandatory sunshine law in a Police State could be contradictory.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Well, the Sunshine Law in itself is a bit "Police Stateish", in the sense they give players no privacy to plan things etc. But the law is not delineating how to mesh gameplay development with metagame political developments, which is all a different ball-game. The analysis in this thread is more open on how to deal with different in-game challenges on an objective basis, but they got no insight into the internal wants and needs of various roleplay aspects. As long as this is within the realm of roleplay motivated actions, its not really covered by Sunshine Law, nor for metagame maneuvers.
I intend to follow this personally by making sure all options considered are laid on the table, with a gameplay-specific (nothing else) reasoning. Other sorts of reasoning not originating in gameplay alone, specifically gameplay, would not be party to this. This means we need instruction threads clear and visible within a deadline and so on.
Tribals themselves wanted Factions to decide when they were the likely candidate, and now they want to get it more to their liking, well, its only fair that we publish our instruction threads and strategy discussions leading up to them. BCLG gave us a good input on alphabet as first priority, for example.
I intend to follow this personally by making sure all options considered are laid on the table, with a gameplay-specific (nothing else) reasoning. Other sorts of reasoning not originating in gameplay alone, specifically gameplay, would not be party to this. This means we need instruction threads clear and visible within a deadline and so on.
Tribals themselves wanted Factions to decide when they were the likely candidate, and now they want to get it more to their liking, well, its only fair that we publish our instruction threads and strategy discussions leading up to them. BCLG gave us a good input on alphabet as first priority, for example.
I'll vote yes.
If I rightly understood it, the point is not about who can take the decision,
but about making opened all analysis, plans, that is, the game itself.
If I'm forbidden to know why the moves are done, then I have been left
out of the game. And the decisions takers, i.e.Prime Faction, should be
the force behind said public discussions, so that we can have one coherent
and interesting game.
Best regards,
If I rightly understood it, the point is not about who can take the decision,
but about making opened all analysis, plans, that is, the game itself.
If I'm forbidden to know why the moves are done, then I have been left
out of the game. And the decisions takers, i.e.Prime Faction, should be
the force behind said public discussions, so that we can have one coherent
and interesting game.
Best regards,
AluminumKnight
Conquistador
Not necessarily. A police state faction would simply post, "here is the way we're doing this, this was decided by our glorious leader XXX, or "this was voted on by the party leaders," etc.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Yeah, but a good Police State Faction would give a good version, and do something totally different, and still get away with it.
"We intended to build 4 hospitals, but the present state of national security requires us to activate "Plan Blastoid Z9CVI3412" and instead produce 20 Marines, 5 Transports and 2 Submarines. We plan to take a few slaves to complete the last sub. Have a nice day"
"We intended to build 4 hospitals, but the present state of national security requires us to activate "Plan Blastoid Z9CVI3412" and instead produce 20 Marines, 5 Transports and 2 Submarines. We plan to take a few slaves to complete the last sub. Have a nice day"
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Voted no. The way the law is written eliminates the possibility of turnchats and numerous other events. I can see why the law was written, but it's written in such a way that destroys numerous things that I find entertaining and enjoyable. Can the prime faction not get together in a chat and discuss the future of the nation? Even if a log of said chat is posted for all to see?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Yeah, I think we need another law to follow with it, to rein in Sunshine Law on a couple of aspects.
So if a Police State did it, it would merely be referred to as a "Junta Decision", end of story.
So if a Police State did it, it would merely be referred to as a "Junta Decision", end of story.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Reminds me of certain factions
Would have been nice if everyone had pointed this out when there was a discussion phrase for this though, instead of shooting it down now.
Im about the last person youd ever expect to propose a law and put it up for a vote. I havent participated in many demogames, but one complaint that Ive always had is much more attention was given to the ruleset than to gameplay. Some of the hairsplitting over the meaning of laws was silly. The long-running debate over the 72 hour rule comes to mind (in which it was maintained that the law didnt mean what its creator said it meant because possibly it could be parsed in a way that gave an alternate ambiguous meaning). These kind of picky legal discussions drive me nuts, and I consider it highly ironic that Im even polling this.
The premise of the faction system was in part based on the idea that the game would work only if we played nice. We would work together without a lengthy ruleset and adjust if we found it necessary, something I very much support. The only reason I got off my lazy behind to sponsor this law was because I believed lack of transparency in discussion and decision making was making this game less fun; had the potential to drive away some players; and was fostering an atmosphere that wasnt nice. Very much to their credit the Triad leaders have recognized the same danger and are taking steps to correct this. Still, I think the Sunshine Law is necessary just to emphasize how important this concept it.
I agree with many of the comments about the law, but dont really see that they disagree with the spirit and intent of the Sunshine Law; which is, that discussion and decision making should be transparent. For instance, Strider quite sensibly asks,
This laws asks us to be open and transparent in our discussion and decision making. Nothing more, nothing less.
The premise of the faction system was in part based on the idea that the game would work only if we played nice. We would work together without a lengthy ruleset and adjust if we found it necessary, something I very much support. The only reason I got off my lazy behind to sponsor this law was because I believed lack of transparency in discussion and decision making was making this game less fun; had the potential to drive away some players; and was fostering an atmosphere that wasnt nice. Very much to their credit the Triad leaders have recognized the same danger and are taking steps to correct this. Still, I think the Sunshine Law is necessary just to emphasize how important this concept it.
I agree with many of the comments about the law, but dont really see that they disagree with the spirit and intent of the Sunshine Law; which is, that discussion and decision making should be transparent. For instance, Strider quite sensibly asks,
There is nothing in the law that says we cant, in fact it can be construed to specifically say it can: the CFC chatroom devoted to the DG sure sounds like one of the public Demogame forums on CFC to me. Do we actually want to enumerate every way in which such transparency of discussion and decision making can occur; or anticipate every contingency? If we do, well have a law thats about as long as our existing Core Laws.
This laws asks us to be open and transparent in our discussion and decision making. Nothing more, nothing less.
If the log is posted, then it is public. If the location of the chat is posted, then it is public. The proposed law requires it to be public, and doesn't place limitations on the form.
