ARTICLE CREATION - Turnchats

simple, just zip all turns per turnchat together, meaning 54 .zip files
also about the trade thing, if it isnt in the instructions then the DP should either play on or stop the chat. Leaders shouldnt be able to change or add to their instructions during the chat...

 

Here is what I think of turnchats:

* All turnchats must be take place in a logged public chatroom
* All preturns must be recorded and posted before the official turnchat begins
* A turnchat must be scheduled atleast three days in advance, however the "official" time may change up to the last day. (Basicly the DP has to say it will be on the 18th on the 15th of the month, however they don't have to post exactly what time it will be at untill the day before the chat.)

I could think of others, but I'm not in the mood right now and feeling pretty sick.

 

I've not run for President in DGV as I've not had the time, not because of the time taken for the chat - if I have to keep a log (and I do for SGOTM) it takes the same time to type it in the chat window as in Word or something. I can then use that log to write the summary (and I did write summaries when I was pres). I could probably have found the time to run the chats themselves in the times in DGV I didn't have time to be Pres (weekend is generally no problem and the weekday chat could have been shorter if necessary), but what I didn't have time for was to lead our nation. This is what takes the time to do properly. To get all the leaders pulling together in the same direction, thinking ahead and planning (and consulting the people appropriately). Running the turnchats is the reward of all the work - how the game comes together as a result of the leadership as President. It is also the responsibility of the President to see the instructions are implemented correctly. It is the culmination of the work that has gone on. Just scheduling and running the turnchats (although I thoroughly enjoy that bit) is not what makes a good president.

So it's not necessarily the turnchats that are stopping people becoming president, I actually see them as the reward for all the work that should be put in as president.

I really don't want to see offline play for anything other than eg: investigate this city. Might as well just become a succession game.

 

Hey, don't use my "succession game" line against my own argument! Had you thrown "glorified" in there, I would need to consult my attorney....

You and I see it differently then, Furiey. For me, the reward was the duty to lead the nation in discussion. It was having to perform for the impatient chat masses that was the pain. Just look how everyone talks about Sir Donald, arguably one of our greatest Presidents:

"Oh, he only did 50 turns in a term...we can't have that again!

Who cares how long it takes? As long as things get discussed properly? It is the coddling of the ADD prima donnas of this game that will force us not to try new things.

Go ahead and have your chat, everyone, and not even consider an option for those who wish to lead in a different way. As I said earlier, I am only interested in the option of having a leader play turns offline if the people choose to elect him/her. But if you wish to limit the pool of candidates to 4 or 5 people (or less), I guess we will have to live with it.

 

You seem to be ignoring something I proposed earlier, that being allows the President to chose the DP for each turnchat.

 

DZ: Just to make it clear; that was in no way meant to be a rant against you personally, just that the general view appeared to be that the time the turnchats took was what stopped people wanting to be President. I just wanted to say that is not always the case - for me the time required to lead was what I did not have and without that I could not do the job properly and hence would not take it on even though I could fit in the turnchats.

 

I know that, Furiey. And I apologize that my post evolved into something that, in the end, was not directed at you. The soapbox rant started with mention of Sir Donald III, who I feel has gotten a bad rap for not completing enough turns in a month's time. Yet not many people led the nation better in discussions.

I'll drop this issue for now, even though several people voted that the DP could decide how to run the sessions. I just think that we should be given the choice, that's all.

 

Unless there is a change in the vote totals, doesn't this poll answer the question for us, that this desision is the President's choice?

The poll included online only, President/DP choice and offline only.

The question has been asked, and answered. We allow the President to determine the format.

-- Ravensfire

 

It makes it no harder whatsoever. There is never any guarantee that the DP in a turnchat hasn't spent the preceding three hours doing god knows what with the game. There is never any concrete guarantee that they are doing what they say at the time they say they are doing it, nor that the turn 0, 5 & 10 saves weren't produced prior to the beginning of the chat. In a chat as in a closed session, the citizenry are entirely dependent on the honesty of the DP.

 

Excuse me, DZ, but this person always defended SD3's play style. I guess when people think of everyone, I'm not included. But then again, I always defended donsig's Terms as President.

Me? An ADD prima donna? I think not. You may have a few more brain cells left than I do, but I don't believe your moral status ranks any higher than mine.

No need to answer this DZ. I know what you're saying. I just wanted to rag on you for a while. If we're considering losing our government structure, which has been with us since day 1, then I guess we can consider losing the turn chats, another founding principle with us since day 1. 'Cause Ek is correct, any DP can cheat, regardless of format. Oh, and our pool of Presidential candidates has always been around 4 or 5.

 

It's much harder to fabricate a "real time" log if you already played the game. Reason? People are going to ask unexpected questions, like, "See if the French have anything to trade now that they're at war with the Aztecs" (i.e., maybe the French and Aztecs were trading something, and now that trade is broken). Or, what if the trade advisor wanted to see the save after a potential trade opened up on say, turn 3, but the DP had really saved turns 0, 5 and 10 already. With a public chat, it makes it much harder for the DP to cover up those things that might come up during the game.

Suppose something like this happened... (a hypothetical scenario).

We are the Byzantines, and have 5 sources of Ivory, and the Maya have 2 sources of ivory. The Maya are trading ivory to the Koreans. Other than the ivory trade, Korea (with 13 size 10-12 cities), has NO luxuries (meaning they value the luxuries highly, and we have good relations with them -- no rep hits). The Koreans are known to be making atleast 45gpt (It's the middle ages).

During the course of the 10 turns, the DP plays ahead before the turnchat. The DP declares war on the Koreans on turn 5 (after saving the game -- or, perhaps does so sooner, and has 2 versions of the save), and later signs a peace treaty on turn 10. The purpose is to capture a city that has horses, and blame it on a culture flip. Now, the Maya happen to break a treaty with the Koreans and declare war on the Koreans on turn 6.

During the chat---

The DP goes through turn 5, pretends everything is fine. Turn 6, the DP says that Pusan has culture flipped (when in fact, it was really captured that turn, with 3 resistors in it). Also on turn 6, the Maya declare war on the Koreans. The trade advisor is present, and wants to see the save to find out if any trade possibilities are available to trade ivory to Korea. Assuming everything has gone as planned, Korea should be at peace with us. Up to this point, the DP has made no mention of the war.

What's the DP to do?

1 - He could say, "Oh yeah, they declared war on us". But, then, how does that answer the fact that maybe, the DP already defeated 25 Korean units, and we have a city with resistors in it?

2 - He could say, "I just checked, and there's no trade deal possible". This is why we should let the advisors and citizentry examine the save. Maybe the Trade Advisor might find something out, like lowering the science rate might open up a trade. Korea's making a lot of money, and we have no rep hit, so something is possible. This would be just plain fishy.

3 - He could switch to his alternate save. But what happens when the Maya don't declare war? Maybe the war was declared do to the DP declaring war on the Koreans (AI dogpiling).

Turnchats help prevent this by making it harder to do things like this.

 

part of your scenario involves leaders adding instructions during the chat, which is a no-no anyway ... If people want to inquire something ask in the presidential thread or pm the DP

 

That's a matter of opinion, which some don't share.

Some facts:

• There have been at least three incidents where in-game technique followed by the DP reulted in disasterous consequences, where advice from others present could have averted disaster.
  1. We missed a double wonder switch opportunity in the middle ages, resulting in 100's of shields lost and missing out on copernicus's and smith's
  2. Poor unit movement technique has left settlers undefended
  3. Poor planning resulted in barbarians sacking the capitol resulting in population loss
• When there are no instructions for an area, advice during the chat changes decisions on that area from solo decisions by the DP into group decisions. A group decision is always better than a solo decision.
• It is possible that the conditions which were present at the beginning of the play session are no longer valid, but a leader's instructions do not take into account this difference. For example, suppose we have decided to declare war on turn 4, but the target civ signs a MPP with a more powerful neighbor on turn 3. We must have the capability to change instructions or force play stoppage to handle similar events.

Yes, I know about the argument that chat attendees get "more power" if advice during the chat is allowed. It's a simple issue for me -- I prefer to give more than one person that power over giving a single person, the DP, all the power. I will gladly take advice when I'm DP, and follow it if it doesn't contradict posted instructions. I would prefer to let the leader change instructions as long as that change does not contradict WOTP. This is a game, not a suicide pact, and I just don't understand why we don't allow reasonable changes. If I am elected President, and we don't allow such changes, then I'll be forced to just stop the game each and every time something stupid comes along.

 

So Trade can't adjust a minor detail because a FA intruction inadverdantly changed it? Would you stop the chat after just that one action because Trade's instruction isn't working? What if the people overwhelmingly wanted that trade?

 

there should be a clause added saying "Stop the TC if blah blah blah changes"

 

I agree with RF and DZ here. The poll quoted above got a decent showing and people want there to be an option for the DP to play offline.

The details of this can still be worked out. It can be an election debate. It could be a Code of Laws article that specifies the approval process for an offline turn set.

I will propose actual language for an article in a followup post.

 

Based on the DGV constitution here is my proposed article:

Terminology: turnset and turnchat will be used interchangeably and be considered roughly equivalent. Does anyone have a better way to handle this?

Code:

Article ?. All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled 
             turnset while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that 
             adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before 
             the scheduled turnset.
            1. A turnchat instruction thread (TCIT) must be created at 
              least 3 days before the scheduled turnset.
              a. All official instructions must be posted in the current 
                turnchat instruction thread. Instructions must be clear 
                and defined.
              b. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour 
                before the Turnset. However, offcials may make changes 
                to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long 
                as those changes are noted.
            2. The Designated Player shall be charged with the creation 
             of a date and time for all turnsets.
             a. the DP must specify when scheduling the turnset (or
              when posting the TCIT) whether it will be a public turnchat
              or be done offline.
             b. Any citizen may create a confirmation poll if they disagree 
              with any particulars for a scheduled turnset.  Any such
              poll must run for at least 24 hours and be considered final
              at the start of the scheduled turnset.

2a and 2b attempt to address the issue of offline chats and even introduce a method whereby an unpopular decision could be overridden. This would apply not only to the online/offline debate but even allow for the postponment of chats when there are major things going on that should be discussed in more detail first. It does not get into quorum or other requirements of binding polls.

 

@Cheiftess,
regarding people cheating with the saves:
What is to prevent any citizen or official from opening the save and playing ten turns to find out what happens and use this to their advantage?

Say we are at war with the English and they have a horseman 1 move from a city that is defended by a solitary horseman of ours. I could try attacking their horseman and seeing how I do. If I lose I reload the save and see what happens when the attack. Maybe I can issue orders to transfer another horseman to our city so that that the solitary English Horse can't capture it.

I could also play out various trade or diplomatic situation. I could even just retire and see the entire map. For that matter, I could just load the entire map in CRpRings and uncheck the Spoiler box and the Resource filter box.

Most of the things that a DP does would be detectable after the fact. Suppose they did declare war to get a city and pretend it was a flip. If they get peace again their will be 2 20 turn deal in the trades on the save.

Most people play with a certain degree of honor. We have to trust people, especially our elected officials, to do the right thing.

 

MOTH, I like your Article ? It is a new way of working this difficult problem. You might want to put in a blurb about plurality and there being no Abstain (if no quorum is needed). And in 2.a. you might want to change "when scheduling the turnchat" to "when posting the TCIT". The reason I say this is because you have included a deadline for posting the TCIT, but there is no rule on scheduling a turnchat (such as what the President would do in the first post of his thread in previous DGs.

Also... even though I agree with Ek that any DP can cheat by playing ahead on the save, I have to agree with CT in that a PUBLIC Turn Chat allows veterans to monitor the flow of the T/C, what is said and how it is said. Public T/Cs have historically assured our population that this game is above board. Believe it or not, there is a method to the madness. I witnessed several instances (and can prove 1 that I can remember off the top of my head) where things were not above board and people voluntarily gave information proving they had prior knowledge. I didn't say anything at the time, but that's a different story.

The fact is, what CT says is true, in that a DP, regardless of how sly they are or how much support from the masses they have need to work extra hard to fool the vets. I can even see discrepencies while reading a chat log, but you have to have a Public T/C to have a bonafide T/C Chat Log.

Even with all the wizardry a vet player can pull with off-line meddling of the save, this wizardry would have to be so detailed and extrapolated out so far in so many different directions, that I don't imagine anyone one doing it more than once, maybe twice. With off-line Turn Sessions, there would be no limit. That's the point. Maximum policing of the DPs moves, making sure that temptation does not overcome our Leader. And with all this, I still haven't touched on the pure joy of attending a T/C.

 

I've made some changes to 2a. I also replace many instances of turnchat with turnset. I left off changes on how to win the confimation poll, but that can be added if people feel its really needed. I would expect that abstain would remain in either case as some people may want to vote for "don't care".

I actually agree with all that you and others say about wanting a public turnchat. I personally feel that we should allow some room for experimentation, and I think it would be nice to make this an Election Issue. If we think someone is abusing it, then we shoot down their request for an offline chat.

I agree with about people with pre-knowledge. I even tried it before I joined the DG and knew all the rules. I quickly found that trying to run a vanilla save in PTW will quickly crash if you try to do anything beyond build queues. I questioned someone in one of the turnchats about how they knew the Roman's had an Army and got no response. IIRC it was some new player who had this foreknowledge.

Of course there is the whole other discussion going on about if ministers should be able to change instructions while the chat progresses. My proposed article above seems to come down on the side that instructions can't be changed.