More Discussion on How Democratic Turn Chats Are.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

Discussion continued from:

Public Investigation #5

Eyrei:Also, our president will be taking instructions from the cabinet (effectively the legislative branch). That is very much like a representative democracy.

Not really. We are talking about the cases here when the president has no prior instructions from the cabinet due to unforseen circumstances. He can then do as he thinks best. These cases are sure to arise as in the many examples before.

Shaitan · Jun 4, 2002

There will always be unforseen circumstances but these can be greatly reduced by the departments setting basic policies (see Foreign Affairs). They can be greatly mitigated by detailed turn instructions and developing "what if" scenarios for likely game events.

eyrei · Jun 4, 2002

If we hold the officials responsible for posting their instructions through a series of warnings and eventual impeachment if they do not comply, I think we will be left with very few important decisions for the president to make. If he comes to something he does not feel he can decide on, he is free to stop the game until there is time to discuss. This rarely, if ever, happens in the turn chats, as there are enough people there to create the facade of ample discussion.

Officials should expect both responsibility and power when elected. If they fail in their responsibility, they lose their power. If the president makes many bad decisions while playing, he can expect the same treatment. I do not think this will be a problem.

Cyc · Jun 4, 2002

Well, good. I'm glad you've stopped talking about ending the chats.

eyrei · Jun 4, 2002

Originally posted by Cyc
Well, good. I'm glad you've stopped talking about ending the chats.

That is exactly what I am building a case for.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

If we hold the officials responsible for posting their instructions through a series of warnings and eventual impeachment if they do not comply

Yes, this would not have happened if the change-over in administration had been smoother. (I'm not blaming anyone here! Just saying in future we should ensure smoother change-over!) The question is how much is necessary. We don't want to make it seem more like a chore or a job. We are after all here to have fun.

, I think we will be left with very few important decisions for the president to make.

Unless the above is implemented to a reasonable extent, officials will continue to miss out instructions. Even then, there is a lot of flexibility for the president to make decisions when unforseen circumstances arise, but not sufficiently to demand a pause in gameplay. But maybe this is a matter of opinion. A poll should probably be held. (A very important poll! This could decide the fate of turn chats!)

This rarely, if ever, happens in the turn chats, as there are enough people there to create the facade of ample discussion.

Yes, but I feel it should be improved by allowing for greater flexibility in the number of turns to be played per chat, instead of there being a stigma against not completing a certain number of turns during the chat.

Shaitan · Jun 4, 2002

The solutions work for either scenario. That is, the possible fixes being discussed will help enormously for both a chat turn or a private turn.

eyrei · Jun 4, 2002

Originally posted by Zur

Yes, this would not have happened if the change-over in administration had been smoother. (I'm not blaming anyone here! Just saying in future we should ensure smoother change-over!) The question is how much is necessary. We don't want to make it seem more like a chore or a job. We are after all here to have fun.

I hope that all of the current officials are aware that they are responsible for certain tasks. For many, much of the fun is having power, and responsibility is accepted for this reason.

Unless the above is implemented to a reasonable extent, officials will continue to miss out instructions. Even then, there is a lot of flexibility for the president to make decisions when unforseen circumstances arise, but not sufficiently to demand a pause in gameplay. But maybe this is a matter of opinion. A poll should probably be held. (A very important poll! This could decide the fate of turn chats!)

Most unforseen circumstances would involve the foreign affairs department, which has categorized all of our neighbors. These categories give useful guidance as to how to deal with a situation involving one of these nations. The declaration of war by another civ, should be considered as a mandatory time to stop playing and return to the forum for discussion.

Yes, but I feel it should be improved by allowing for greater flexibility in the number of turns to be played per chat, instead of there being a stigma against not completing a certain number of turns during the chat.

I completely agree.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

I hope that all of the current officials are aware that they are responsible for certain tasks. For many, much of the fun is having power, and responsibility is accepted for this reason.

Well, something has to be done to make officials post the necessary instructions as there is nothing on this at the moment. This is a big reason why chat attendees (or the president, if turn chats are scrapped) wield an inordinate amount of power. In the absense of departmental instructions, attendees should be there more as a fall back system.

Most unforseen circumstances would involve the foreign affairs department, which has categorized all of our neighbors. These categories give useful guidance as to how to deal with a situation involving one of these nations. The declaration of war by another civ, should be considered as a mandatory time to stop playing and return to the forum for discussion.

I'm sure there are many more cases not covered by FA of posted instructions by departments. In times of war, for example, the president could have a decision on where to move troops or whether to attack, which is impossible for Military Dept. to advise in advance. A worker could have finished doing what he wanted and the domestic department cannot possible keep track of all workers to instruct the president on what to do next. The purpose of chat attendees in these cases would be to decide what to do.

Yes, but I feel it should be improved by allowing for greater flexibility in the number of turns to be played per chat, instead of there being a stigma against not completing a certain number of turns during the chat.

I completely agree.

That's why I feel turn chats should be given the chance to evolve fully before deciding whether it could work better than without them. It has certainly made the game more fun for the attendees.

eyrei · Jun 4, 2002

Originally posted by Zur

Well, something has to be done to make officials post the necessary instructions as there is nothing on this at the moment. This is a big reason why chat attendees (or the president, if turn chats are scrapped) wield an inordinate amount of power. In the absense of departmental instructions, attendees should be there more as a fall back system.

I will start a separate thread for this.

I'm sure there are many more cases not covered by FA of posted instructions by departments. In times of war, for example, the president could have a decision on where to move troops or whether to attack, which is impossible for Military Dept. to advise in advance. A worker could have finished doing what he wanted and the domestic department cannot possible keep track of all workers to instruct the president on what to do next. The purpose of chat attendees in these cases would be to decide what to do.

Allowing the president to move workers is certainly not giving too much power to the office. The only way I, as domestic leader, would get involved directly is if I noticed or was notified that a certain area greatly needed the attention of our workers. I would then include this in the turn instruction thread.
As far as war goes, no matter what we do, the person playing the game is the only one with sufficient information to decide what to do with military units. If I were playing a turn during war, even with the present turn chat setup, I would likely seem to ignore the advice of everyone at the chat, because they would not be able to see what I did.

That's why I feel turn chats should be given the chance to evolve fully before deciding whether it could work better than without them. It has certainly made the game more fun for the attendees.

Turn chats have been evolving for a long time and haven't really changed that much. I suggest we shorten the number of turns played to about 5, and see how it works. I do not forsee a quick victory for my campaign to remove them anyway, so they will have their chance to prove their worth for a while longer.

disorganizer · Jun 4, 2002

why does every1 stick to 10 turn a chat? we can always stop if something unforeseen happens.
i cant believe how beurocratic we are. we HAVE to play 10 turns, no matter what happens. why not stop if we miss instructions? just because our officials want to bring as much turn over in their term? no.
this game is getting some kind of stupid in my opinion, which it wasnt at the beginning. maybe some ppl just over-extended the rules a bit into their direction.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

Allowing the president to move workers is certainly not giving too much power to the office.

Strictly speaking, he should use them in a manner which most citizens would support, regardless of his personal preferences.

As far as war goes, no matter what we do, the person playing the game is the only one with sufficient information to decide what to do with military units. If I were playing a turn during war, even with the present turn chat setup, I would likely seem to ignore the advice of everyone at the chat, because they would not be able to see what I did.

The DP is supposed to relay this information to the attendees for a "democratic" decision to be made.

Turn chats have been evolving for a long time and haven't really changed that much. I suggest we shorten the number of turns played to about 5, and see how it works.

They have only been around for slightly more than 2 months. The rules & constitution of the game are also evolving rapidly in this time.

I don't think shortening it is a good solution. If nothing much happens, 10 turns can be a breeze. If the pre-turn stuff are all done already, it could even take less than 2 hrs. As disorganizer said, there should be more *flexibility* in the no. of turns to play.

disorganizer · Jun 4, 2002

maybe our government should just organize itself a bit better. i wonder how undisciplined officials can be.

eyrei · Jun 4, 2002

Originally posted by Zur

Strictly speaking, he should use them in a manner which most citizens would support, regardless of his personal preferences.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to post polls about what each worker should do. If an area is neglected, I will do so, however.

The DP is supposed to relay this information to the attendees for a "democratic" decision to be made.

It is nearly impossible and extraordinarily time consuming to do this. It is also fraught with peril. No military in the history of man has used a democratic system to decide on troop movements. I do not see why we would.

They have only been around for slightly more than 2 months. The rules & constitution of the game are also evolving rapidly in this time.

I don't think shortening it is a good solution. If nothing much happens, 10 turns can be a breeze. If the pre-turn stuff are all done already, it could even take less than 2 hrs. There should be more *flexibility* in the no. of turns to play.

Flexibility is fine. However, with fewer turns played each time, it would be much easier to make sure the player has all the information he/she needs.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

We are organized properly in the normal running of the government. The change-over was just not carried out smoothly.

disorganizer · Jun 4, 2002

which change over?
why wasnt the last turn-chat canceled then if the government was not prepared properly?
why does every1 blame things on the rules or the chat? they are only the guidelines and the technical vehicle. why dont they blame it on the way ppl work out things?
why arent the turn chats stopped and brought to forum if some important proposals are missing?
just some questions to think about.
not the turnchat is undemocratic, but maybe the way ppl interpret the rules nowadays.

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

I have neither the time nor the inclination to post polls about what each worker should do. If an area is neglected, I will do so, however.

The DP can post a poll if he/she wants, but for efficiency, I was suggesting that he does what he thinks most citizens would support regardless of his personal opinion, even without a poll.

It is nearly impossible and extraordinarily time consuming to do this. It is also fraught with peril. No military in the history of man has used a democratic system to decide on troop movements. I do not see why we would.

During GF's presidency, he would seek the advice of the attendees during combat. Possibly, the function of attendees would not be to implement democracy in this case if it is unworkable, but to give advice to the president.

with fewer turns played each time, it would be much easier to make sure the player has all the information he/she needs.

Tradeoff between progress of game and information to the DP/democracy. A separate discussion/poll is needed for this (separate from the one CT is doing now).

Zur · Jun 4, 2002

which change over?

Electorial change in administration.

why wasnt the last turn-chat canceled then if the government was not prepared properly?

It's not against the constitution to cancel/postpone one after the date has been decided is it?

I suppose the attendees wanted to get on with the game/everyone assumed it would go ahead/it was felt that instructions were sufficient to proceed. I can't speak for the rest of the attendees.

disorganizer · Jun 4, 2002

with fewer turns played each time, it would be much easier to make sure the player has all the information he/she needs.

this is also a good example of organization if
a) the player in charge would pre-accumulate information
or
b) the information was organized in the forum in a way for him to find easily
then this would be an ease. i wonder how greyfox managed to do this though. we never had these problems, even in time when he did not attend the chat and we needed 30 minutes to find an active player.

Cyc · Jun 4, 2002

I have to side with Zur in this discussion. A word of warning tho, Zur. For every word you type, Eyrie will type two.

We don't need to shorten the turn chats. we don't need to end the turn chats. We just need to stop complaining about them and make them work. If there is a major problem, (like a flat tire) stop and fix it. If not, keep looking at the map or asking for directions until you've gone far enough for that day.

More Discussion on How Democratic Turn Chats Are.

Freaky lozur with spikes

der Besucher

Deity

Looking for the door...

Deity

Freaky lozur with spikes

der Besucher

Deity

Freaky lozur with spikes

Deity

Deity

Freaky lozur with spikes

Deity

Deity

Freaky lozur with spikes

Deity

Freaky lozur with spikes

Freaky lozur with spikes

Deity

Looking for the door...

Similar threads