Quite a simple poll, actually, and just an informational one, nothing to finalize here. Can the will of those at the chat be considered to be the Will of the People when those at the forum cannot be asked for input? I would not like any special scenarios or talk about how the forum could always show Will of the People before the turnchat.
Can the people of the chat (sometimes) be the Will of the People?
- Thread starter Noldodan
- Start date
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I beleve that the people of the chat can and will be the will of the people. As long as they are registered citizens in the demogame then they [the chatters in #turnchat] can be the will of the people.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
CivGeneral said:
<sarcasm> Of course! They completely represent the entire viewpoint of everyone, we've got complete ability to ensure that only registered citizens attend the chat, and those lazy idiots at work or asleep due to time differences can just shut their whining hole!</sarcasm>
Oh yes, it's so wonderful to allow a small minority to chart the course of the nation without bothering us peons. You wouldn't want us to worry our pretty little heads, do you? Your concern for us is touching.
-- Ravensfire
Falcon02
General
No, however, the DP can use such polls to better formulate his own decision, and even if he wishes base his actions on the poll. However it's the DP's perogative how to act upon it, just as it's the DP's perogative to ask for a vote in the first place.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Noldodan said:
No, no I didn't miss the point. You want to allow the will of a small minority of the people to serve as the will of the whole.
I don't.
Any questions?
-- Ravensfire
Fier Canadien
Citizen
I think that the Will of the People can be expressed in a chat room, and that the opinion formulated in the said chatroom is as valid as any opinion posted in the forums.
I believe we should give the right, no, the obligation, for the duty player, to spot vote the will of the people when there is some unpredicted event happening during a TC. By the way, such spot votes should be subject to legal restrictions, such as the right to abstain and a reasonable quorum, to make it as valid and meaningful as a normal time vote in the forums.
It is surely better to keep everything possible in the forums, but we never know what might happen. Give the duty player the obligation to poll the will of the people so that he can better fullfill his duty.
I believe we should give the right, no, the obligation, for the duty player, to spot vote the will of the people when there is some unpredicted event happening during a TC. By the way, such spot votes should be subject to legal restrictions, such as the right to abstain and a reasonable quorum, to make it as valid and meaningful as a normal time vote in the forums.
It is surely better to keep everything possible in the forums, but we never know what might happen. Give the duty player the obligation to poll the will of the people so that he can better fullfill his duty.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Noldodan said:
I think the point of this poll is abvious. It is an attempt to ratify the idea that changes to posted instructions can be made during the chat. To this idea I say:
donsig
Low level intermediary
Fier Canadien said:
Please read up on PI#6 from DG1.
We should learn to live with little mistakes in posted instructions and have faith that when something truly unexpected happens our duly elected President will have the wisdom to know whether or not game play should be stopped or not, and the courage to follw his (or her) wisdom.
Fier Canadien
Citizen
donsig said:
DG1? That is no longer jurisprudence, Donsig. We'll have a different constitution, a different lawset, and thus, the DG1 PI doesn't mean nothing anymore.
But this does not mean that we must forget our past. We must learn from it, but we don't have to live it a second time.
(edit: and, by the way, I wasn't aware of such a debate in DG1, as I joined the game in DG2, T2)
Beware of extremist positions -- I'm always bothered by them, and never want to see them prevail. 
Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?
Where does it end? Do we set the limit at 48 hours, or 7 days?
Does it matter what kind of decision it is? Does it matter what the margin of victory is?
What about a poll in which 51% of the census votes, but 100% of those voting choose a particular option -- is that more or less valid than a poll in which 100% of the people vote and the margin of victory is one vote? Which is a stronger statement about the will of the people?
BTW, what do you call an extreme anti-extremist position?
Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?
Where does it end? Do we set the limit at 48 hours, or 7 days?
Does it matter what kind of decision it is? Does it matter what the margin of victory is?
What about a poll in which 51% of the census votes, but 100% of those voting choose a particular option -- is that more or less valid than a poll in which 100% of the people vote and the margin of victory is one vote? Which is a stronger statement about the will of the people?
BTW, what do you call an extreme anti-extremist position?
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
In the event that the will of the people is not determined in the forums, it must have the ability for it to be determined in the TC's
TimBentley
Deity
My response to the poll is due to the fact that the question only asked if the possiblity was possible, not whether the will of the people is usually represented in the chat, or whether it should be assumed so. It is possible that the people in the chat have wills that represent the will of the people; it is possible that they do not. It should not be assumed that the will of those at the chat is the same as the will of the people. The people at the chat are a subset of the citizenry who actually have time to attend the chat or at least part of it. That could infer many things, but I don't feel like analyzing the possible effects on the will of those people and how those effects could be based on the causes that enable or encourage people to attend the chat. I know I wouldn't want to have my opinion ignored if major (I would not mind minor actions to be done without my opinion, but what represents minor, and why wouldn't the DP be able to make such decisions by himself or herself? A question I don't feel like answering) decisions were made without the possiblity of my opinion being inputted (beyond some unique circumstances where the vast majority of the people were able to input their inputs, but I for some reason was unable to). If this has influenced your opinion in this matter, there's probably something wrong with you. 
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DaveShack said:Beware of extremist positions -- I'm always bothered by them, and never want to see them prevail.
Suppose we post a poll which is open for 24 hours, and very few people are online during that particular time period. Is the will of the people as determined by that poll valid?
Where does it end? Do we set the limit at 48 hours, or 7 days?
Does it matter what kind of decision it is? Does it matter what the margin of victory is?
What about a poll in which 51% of the census votes, but 100% of those voting choose a particular option -- is that more or less valid than a poll in which 100% of the people vote and the margin of victory is one vote? Which is a stronger statement about the will of the people?
BTW, what do you call an extreme anti-extremist position?
And yet you would allow a bare handful of people that happen to be able to attend the chat to overrule the citizens? A bare handful to determine when an instruction isn't wise? A bare handful to override the desires of an elected official, supported by the will of the people?
And THAT is what some of you want to call a Democracy game?
I have no trouble, NONE, with the DP seeking advice from those at the chat for scenarios where the instructions are not clear.
As donsig has pointed out, and drove me from the game in disgust in DG4, there is a desire to play "the perfect game". At Monarch level? When we have highly talented players? What - we can't recover from a few mistakes? Oh my goodness, how I have overestimated our abilities.
Keep the game, and the discussions from it, in the forums, not in the isolated, barely populated world of the turn chat.
-- Ravensfire
donsig said:I think the point of this poll is abvious. It is an attempt to ratify the idea that changes to posted instructions can be made during the chat. To this idea I say:
donsig: would it be okay for the leaders who posted the instructions to change them mid-chat?
ravensfire said:
No, I'm as much against the extreme of allowing everything to be changed as I am against the extreme of allowing nothing to be changed. Look more closely at my post and focus on those specific example circumstances.
In the case of existing instructions, where there was citizen input, I want a "bare handful" to be able to ask for a decision to be discussed in the forum by everyone by forcing play to stop, nothing more. I'm even willing to limit that to cases where conditions at the time are different than conditions at the time the forum decision was made.
Give the chat some power, no matter how small, and we'll encourage a lot of people to stay in the game, or even become more active.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I agree with Daveshack, Give the chat at least some power. At least it will encurage people to stay in the game or better yet. Become more interested and become more active.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Fier Canadien said:
The constitution we now have evolved from the debates surrounding PI#6 and the veto that was exercised prior to that PI. Way back then we started nailing down general principles we wanted in the demogame and placing those in our constitution. PI#6 is relevant to this discussion. The DP called a spot vote to decide whether to continue play or not. Those at the chat wanted to continue. The DP stopped play anyway. Yes, calling such a spot vote was stupid but it just goes to show the kinds of problems we will encounter once we give those at the chat power. And we are doing nothing short of giving them power if we declare that the will of the chat is the will of the people, even if only in certain cases.
Let's put this idea down, back away and move on to better things.
Similar threads
- Locked
