Public Investigation#5: June 2nd chat - Citizen poll ignored

Zur reported that a existing citizen-decision was ignored in June 2nd turn-chat. This is a mayor violation of the constitution.
Details can be found here.

The discussion is started here.

If there is no negative post in this thread about the incident, this thread is closed and no poll is held. If there is a minimum of one negative post, a poll will be held.

Zur's statement:

During the 2 June turn chat, citizen votes were held for the construction of Newton's University and Shakespeare's Theatre in PDX. The results were 2-3 against and 3-2 for respectively. PDX completed Shakespeare's Theatre instead of Newton's University. An informal citizen poll in the forum was previously held over the choices of Smith's Trading Company, Newton's University and Shakespeare's Theatre. The results were:

Smith's and Newton's : 9
Smith's and Shakespeare's : 2
Shakespeare's and Newton's : 2

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...&threadid=23527

This may have been a case of not following citizens' wishes in the chat since Shakespeare's Theatre was built before Newton's University (now being built).

2 June Chatlog

The discussion is slightly after half-way through the chat.

Click to expand...

I support the investigation but have not seen a violation for these reasons:

- The poll was an "information poll" to an unknown purpose by our former domestic leader. No result of the poll was planned or stated, nor was one announced.

- The poll text read: "Which two wonders should we concentrate on building now?". Not "Which wonders shall we build"

- With the recent absence of domestic leadership, no specific instructions, debate, or official poll on how the wonder program was to be handled took place. There were no instructions posted othewise in the instructions thread.

- Participation in this poll was relatively low.

Therefore, I don't believe this poll was binding and I believe the chat group had the right to hold a spot poll on the issue of wonder building.

Like the last Science debate issue, I believe we are just suffering the effects of missing leaders.

I agree with Chiefpaco that it may actually have been my fault (as much as a fried modem can be my fault) that this situation occured. Because their was no clear instruction from the domestic department, a spot vote was called.

However, when making a decision about a wonder, even if a poorly constructed or vague poll or unofficial poll contains the necessary information, it should be followed if at all possible. There was obviously very little support from the citizenry for the construction of the theatre, and this should have been taken into account during the turn chat. I do not believe this warrants any sort of punishment, but I do hope it calls attention to the fact that those who can attend the turn chats have far too much power! Sorry, I had to get that out.

as in some other thread, the constitution says that the will of the citizenry should be followed. if disregarded, it could even lead to impeachment (J-1).
but i think a warning-letter should be sufficient here.

I have a question. Suppose, for some reason, later in the game, it was found out that one wonder would have been completed by someone else, thus, we would not get it. Then what?

i.e., Say we were suppoed to pick Smith's and Theory, and went with Smith's and Theatre as charge suggests. Suppose Greece finished Theory well before we could. (i.e., after playing 5 or so turns into the next turn chat - where ours might've been done in 20).

Who is the subject of this investigation?

I already miss the quick reply box.

I agree with the chief. I would also like to add my opinion that the swing towards Shakespeare's Globe Theatre took place when it was revealed that this Wonder contributed 8 Culture points to the Nation. At this time the majority of the votes had already been cast.

donsig: ask zur. i completely stay out of any future investigations. read his original post (link in first post). read the log. ask him.

I don't think we can have an investigation without a defendant. It's sort of required.

Originally posted by eyrei
I agree with Chiefpaco that it may actually have been my fault (as much as a fried modem can be my fault) that this situation occured. Because their was no clear instruction from the domestic department, a spot vote was called.

Click to expand...

Absence is not a fault. I know you mean that, but I wanted to make myself clear that it may have been a cause, but not a fault.

I can make 2 recommendations to avoid similar confusion in the future:
1. Absence of Leadership
- Deputies currently have a tough time deciding when to step in. This was a case where a Domestic Deputy might have been able to take over and flatten the wonder issue before it came up during the chat. In the case of the Domestic Dept, perhaps Skilord should take over the reigns on undecided issues over weekends, knowing Eyrei does not have internet access. I urge strong communication between leaders and deputies to ensure maximum presence.

2. Informational Polling
- The poll had no provisions to what would happen after voting and its purpose was unclear. Even questions into the poll's purpose were not answered. I think donsig was misleading the public on this issue. Was he just curious? Or was he going to implement something but then was voted out of office? We cannot tell, nor do we need to know. Polls on public issues should not be informational and they should have a point.

I would like to say something, only because I am severely urged to do so. Quoted from Eyrei:

those who can attend the turn chats have far too much power!

Click to expand...

If the President was alone in the game, they would have faced the exact same dilemna and we would have the exact same problem. I believe this (and most) chat problems come as a result of a poor planning done in the forum.

Originally posted by chiefpaco


I would like to say something, only because I am severely urged to do so.

If the President was alone in the game, they would have faced the exact same dilemna and we would have the exact same problem. I believe this (and most) chat problems come as a result of a poor planning done in the forum.

Click to expand...

But, the president is elected to the highest position in Phoenatica because we trust him/her to make decisions like that. While the turn chats may seem at first to be more democratic, particularly to those that can attend, they are in reality far less democratic, as many of those attending are not elected officials. What I meant by my statement was that a citizen who can attend the turn chats, whether elected or not, has far more influence than one who cannot attend. Since less than ten people generally are at the chats, a minority of the population that is not representative of Phoenatica, makes decisions for all of us. The people of Phoenatica do not have the ability to choose who will attend the turn chats, and therefore have no voice in these decisions. The president is duly elected, and therefore has the mandate from the population necessary to make decisions.

Originally posted by eyrei

turn chats may seem at first to be more democratic, particularly to those that can attend, they are in reality far less democratic, as many of those attending are not elected officials.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ and the proof is in the chat logs. I have yet to see one turn chat where there were more than 1 or 2 non-officials attend let alone make up anything close to a majority.

To be honest I'm not sure who is the subject of this investigation either (is one needed?). Many of the active chat attendees *may* be at fault IMO for disregarding even an informal poll (departments are supposed to reflect the wishes of the citizenry). But the president held the spot vote. Even then, he does not hold sole responsibility for the final outcome IMO (ie. building the Theatre). In fact, considering the wording of the informal poll, I think a spot vote in the chat was justified.

Edit: another thing to note: the attendance of the forum vote was much higher than the chat vote. I had pointed this out during the chat.

Edit: It was a citizen chat vote, so they should have been free to vote anyway they felt was right and not bound to department wishes.

I think we left the topic here. Maybe you can start another thread about this. Seeing how I've already started this, I would confirm the point that no matter who plays or how the game is played (chat/solo), if proper instruction is laid out before hand, the decision making (therefore the power) will be held to a minimum.

EDIT: Never fails. When I go to post, someone has already slid one in before me. Your right Zur. Some people sign into the chat but don't participate.

So is this investigation over?

Originally posted by chiefpaco


I beg to differ and the proof is in the chat logs. I have yet to see one turn chat where there were more than 1 or 2 non-officials attend let alone make up anything close to a majority.

Click to expand...

But how many of those officials are the winners of the elections? Many times it will be a deputy that is present. While I do not want to insult the deputies, they were not really elected. At most, they had some support to fulfill duties for their particular department. My point is that they lack a mandate from the populace. Over half of our citizens hold some position or another. I was referring to the leaders of the departments, not necessarily any official. A spot vote where many of the participants are not duly elected is not democratic, except for in the confines of the turn chat.


To be honest I'm not sure who is the subject of this investigation either (is one needed?).

In my opinion, the subject of the investigation is the turn chats. I do not think any one person is at fault.

"Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical turn chat ceremony!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

Originally posted by Shaitan
"Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical turn chat ceremony!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

Click to expand...

I think I may have to make that quote my new signature.

Edit: Done. I needed a new one anyway.

Back to the topic - without a defendant, there is no investigation. This thread should properly be titled a discussion. The chat turn itself cannot be charged as it is a thing that we manipulate, a tool. It could be the vehicle of a violation but never a violator. Since citizens are not required to follow the results of polls, only an elected official could be guilty of not following a poll. Please name an official that is under investigation or close the investigatory portion of this thread. (The discussion should continue, of course.)

But how many of those officials are the winners of the elections? Many times it will be a deputy that is present. While I do not want to insult the deputies, they were not really elected. At most, they had some support to fulfill duties for their particular department. My point is that they lack a mandate from the populace. Over half of our citizens hold some position or another. I was referring to the leaders of the departments, not necessarily any official. A spot vote where many of the participants are not duly elected is not democratic, except for in the confines of the turn chat.

Click to expand...

Slightly off topic:

You are right, I'm afraid. But this is the best system we have now. To have a truly "democratic" system we would need to force every citizen to attend turn chats and vote in them. But of course being democratic may mean they can choose not to vote... The most democratic is Athenian democracy, followed by representative democracy, of which our system is a subset.