New Laws -- Valid Forms of Instructions

Shall this new law be adopted in its entirety?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

DaveShack

Inventor
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
13,109
Location
Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
This poll is to propose acceptance of a new Law regarding the valid forms of instructions from Leaders to the DP. Discussion on this proposal can be found here.

If this proposed law is approved according to the rules for passing new laws, it will be inserted into the CoL at the next available section number, as administered by the judiciary.

The proposal is for one section on Valid Forms of Instructions from Leaders to the DP in several subsections:

  1. The only binding instructions are those given in the Forums, either in a gameplay instruction thread, or in a standing orders thread.
  2. Standing orders remain active while the player who posted them remains in the same office held when the orders are posted, or until superceded by a new standing order, or until cancelled. Once a turn using a standing order has been played, changes to that order must be announced in a new post, not in an edit to the original post. This prevents misunderstanding about when an order is posted. Standing orders can be superceded by gameplay instructions. Standing orders for all departments will be posted in a single, sticky thread in the main DemoGame forum.
  3. Gameplay instructions pertain to a particular set of turns to be played, and must be posted in the gameplay instructions thread for those turns. Gameplay instructions supercede any conflicting standing orders from the same department.
  4. To avoid situations of last minute changes possibly conflicting with actions already taken by the DP in game play, the DP will post a "play starting" response in the thread prior to starting play, and all changes to instructions must be posted in a new reply, not in an edit.
  5. Fuller participation in and enjoyment of the game being desired, the DP is encouraged to play the game during an on-line chat session, but is allowed to play offline when circumstances warrant. In furtherance of the goal of encouraging DP's to play online, the election office may request any candidates for office to post their policy on turn chats as part of the nomination or debate threads.
  6. During an on-line game play session (turn chat), the DP may request advice of any player. Any player may spontaneously give advice, which the DP is free to follow or not at his/her sole discretion. A non-binding spot vote of the council members (or representatives) present may be requested to obtain advice, but during play the only binding instructions are the ones posted in Standing Orders or Gameplay Instructions threads.
  7. Standing orders must not be of the form "no xxx without yyy department approval". The intent of the game is to have well thought decisions. Therefore decisions can not be deferred until game play time in this way.
  8. An instruction may be of the form "if xyz happens, stop play so discussion can be conducted", as long as it is possible to save the game without proceeding. This form of instruction can not be used for dialogs which require an immediate answer. The absense of such an order does not mean the game must continue, the DP may choose to stop the game and seek advice from the people at any time.
    [/list=1]

    I can't remember if a quorum is required for laws to be passed. This poll will be initially set for 2 days (48 hours) and if it needs to be left open longer to reach a quorum please contact the mods to change it.

    Since the 2 days will occur longer than the time before the next TurnChat, please post all instructions in the gameplay thread, the proposed standing orders concept is not in force. :)
 
Now, in my capacity as a citizen, I will post this separately from the poll itself.

If you like most of the ideas in this proposal, and disagree with only a few, the best thing for the game is to vote yes. :) OTOH, if you feel you must vote against this, please comment on why. Although it is best for the DemoGame to get this written down, I will be happy to keep trying until a majority is comfortable with it.
 
I voted Yes for this. And As a PSC Board Member, Ill go ahead and look over a few things
 
I'm voting no because there should be no seperate standing orders thread. Game play instructions are difficult enough to sift through when they are all in one thread. Having two threads to jump back and forth between is asking too much of the DP. Leaders can copy and paste standing orders into each game play instruction thread.
 
Originally posted by DaveShack
Now, in my capacity as a citizen, I will post this separately from the poll itself.

If you like most of the ideas in this proposal, and disagree with only a few, the best thing for the game is to vote yes. :) OTOH, if you feel you must vote against this, please comment on why. Although it is best for the DemoGame to get this written down, I will be happy to keep trying until a majority is comfortable with it.

But by voting yes we'd be voting to accept the whole package. This is precisely the problem with trying to pass laws en masse. This proposal, with a seperate standing orders thread complicates the game play instruction process unneccessarily and this will lead to arguments when instructions are missed. We should be working to streamline and simplify the game play instruction process, not make it more unwieldy.
 
I must also vote No, as did donsig, although for entirely different reasons. I believe that not every situation can be planned for or even forecasted. Situations may change rapidly during the course of the turnchat. Somewhat large, though not pontentially game-ruining, decisions are left up to the DP to make, albeit with optional advice from the citizenry present. I would therefore like a provision to be made for spot votes in case of relatively small, non-game-stopping, events. If this is not included, the decision will be left up to the will of one person, regardless of the will of the people.
 
I also voted No, for similar reasons that Noldodan did. For instance, in the July 2 turnchat, there was absolutely no way that Zarn could have predicted that we would be at war and therefore to post what he wished that donsig would not sign the treaty. By doing things that are completely unpredictable, a President could get around instructions. Perhaps we need to make the declaration of war a chat-stopping issue, and we also need a means to have spot votes in the turnchat.

Also, the approval requirements to pass this as a law are either a superplurality of the people voting or a majority of the people voting plus a majority of the Senate as a whole. The quorum is 1/3 of the Fanatican citizenry who voted in the most active poll of the most recent full elections, therefore, 42/3=14 votes, which this poll has already met (15 votes at the moment).
 
I will also vote no on this poll until there is a law allowing citizens *some* sort of control over their country while the DP plays the game. As it is, I believe passing these laws will negate such a law.
 
I voted YES. Although I agree with donsig about the Standing Order thread, the point he makes can be changed later, when we find out what a pain in the butt the rule really is. Standing Orders should go in the TCI. As we can change it later, I don't see why this Section can't get passed and on the books.

Personally, I can't see why paragraphs 5 and 6 are listed in this Section, but that is another minor point. By accepting this, we can get them on the books and relocated later.

I do not agree with Noldodan. We've just spent quite a bit of time discussing this matter and my thoughts are posted there. Let's just move on and get this thing passed and on the books.
 
There is a reason for having a separate Standing Orders thread. As Domestic Leader I want to say "The turn before a tech is discovered, lower the science rate to the lowest level that will produce the tech in one turn. Once it has been discovered, raise the science rate back up to a level which produces a minimum of +n gpt". I don't want to have to type this in 2-3 times a week, I want to put it in a single post in the Standing Orders thread, and know it will be followed every time the game is played, whether I remember to post it or not.

FA might have a SO for "check and report our reputation with all rivals (Polite, Cautious, Annoyed, etc.) every 5 turns." -- OK, that one is a little overboard but it's just to make a point anyway... ;)

Trade might have a SO for "reject all trade proposals from the AIs where we give a map".

These are all things which won't change for the entire term, and we should not have to write them every time the game is played.

Unless we're all a few slices short of a full loaf, this will be a very short list. ;) ;)
 
i sevond dave there. those instructions are at the moment posted in the departmental threads as policy (or were last game). but they never get respected as the DP only reads the TCI thread.
 
I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?
 
Originally posted by DaveShack
There is a reason for having a separate Standing Orders thread. As Domestic Leader I want to say "The turn before a tech is discovered, lower the science rate to the lowest level that will produce the tech in one turn. Once it has been discovered, raise the science rate back up to a level which produces a minimum of +n gpt". I don't want to have to type this in 2-3 times a week, I want to put it in a single post in the Standing Orders thread, and know it will be followed every time the game is played, whether I remember to post it or not.

Never heard of copy and paste?

Why is it that your desire not to retype something is more important than making it easier on the DP to follow all the instructions given? The DP is playing the game and trying to report what is happening in the chat room and he has to look at the game play instruction thread. Now you want him to have to loook at another window as well just because you don't like typing?
 
Originally posted by Noldodan
I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

Governors have deputies that can post instructions. Governors can also post instructions as sson as the game play instruction thread is opened. These instructions can always be edited up until game play time. Also, governors can construct build queues that are 30 to 40 turns (3 to 4 game play sesssions) long so that missing one set of instructions does not neccessarily mean the will of the people as expressed bu the governor gets ignored if instructions aren't posted.
 
But what if, as I said before, something like what happened to me happened again. And would someone please tell me why instructions in the chat are less valid?
 
Originally posted by Noldodan
I can't belive that I did not ask this before, but, why exactly are instructions given by a leader at a chat invalid? They're still instructions? And if you're going to argue that people have PLENTY of time to post instructions, that does not always happen. For example, this term, due to the runoff elections, I was raised Governor of Aventine mere minutes previous to the turnchat. There was NO WAY for me to have posted instructions before the chat. There is also the possible case of a leader being called away right before posting instruction, then logging on to see that the turnchat is going on. Should that person not be able to give instructions during the ONLY time that he can?

Noldodan, this too has been discussed extensively in prior threads. Simply put, the Leaders at the t/c do not order the DP around. The President/DP may ask the Leaders for input or advice on a matter, but certainly does not ask for instruction. Instructions are to be left in the TCI by the appropriate Leaders.

For your examples, if a Leader was present in a t/c and had not posted instructions in the TCI, I would think that they would have to have a damn good excuse after what we've just been through. Aside from that, in the examples you listed, I'm sure the DP would seek advice from the Leader in regards to their Department or Province. Just because what Leaders say in a t/c are not legal instructions doesn't mean that the DP won't ask for advice or follow said advice. It just means he's not required to.
 
So, cyc, what you're saying pretty much is that it is OK to give instructions in the turnchat IF they had no chance to post them in the thread?
 
No what I'm saying is if the Leader didn't post any Instructions in the TCI for whatever reasons, but has made themselves available to the President in the t/c for any advice that may be asked of them, then they can offer said advice to the President or wait to be asked for said advice. This "advice" may or may not be followed to the letter, as this "advice" is not a "valid instruction".
 
So instructions posted during the chat are invalid because they are "ordering the DP around"? But aren't the instructions in the TCI thread also "ordering the DP around"?
 
Back
Top Bottom