Can the people of the chat (sometimes) be the Will of the People?

[Sarevok]

In the event a President becomes unpopular with the chat attendees (for whatever reason) the chat attendees then have the power to halt play repeatedly just because they don't like the DP. Not a very good compromise if you ask me.

Still wanting to keep power strictly in the DP's hands? The people of the TC should at least have the option to halt the TC if they cant be the will of the people.

 

[eyrei]

I think it is apparent from the number of people voting for each side of this debate that some sort of compromise is in order. Why don't we work towards that instead of getting in shouting matches.

 

[Chieftess]

Or, we can make this compremise right here:

The people of the chat is the will of the people when 33% (or 50%) of the census is in attendance and all 33% (or 50%) has voted.


BTW, we really need to pick things up. 2 months without a demogame is absurd.

 

[donsig]

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state, then it should be allowed"

By "survival", I mean if enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders. This is the only time when any instructions ought to be changed in any form. Otherwise I completely disagree with the idea.

As for your "anarchy" idea, I can see that. There is no need for a aristocracy to rule the TC's. I can compromise on the issue of letting instructions not approved by the people in the forums be done by the DP, but at their own risk.

Then why don't you word it like this:

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state because enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders, then it should be allowed"

Why we need such a rule is beyond me. In four demogames we've never come close to this situation - not even during the infamous Aztec War of term three DG III.

 

[donsig]

I think it is apparent from the number of people voting for each side of this debate that some sort of compromise is in order. Why don't we work towards that instead of getting in shouting matches.

Any suggestions as to what the compromise might be? You've said that giving those at the chat the sole power to stop the chat wouold be a good compromise. While disagree with the idea I'm certainly willing to discuss it. Under what conditions would we allow a halt in play to be requested? How many votes would it take to actually force the halt? Anyone have any specific proposals?

 

[donsig]

Or, we can make this compremise right here:

The people of the chat is the will of the people when 33% (or 50%) of the census is in attendance and all 33% (or 50%) has voted.

BTW, we really need to pick things up. 2 months without a demogame is absurd.

What's the hurry CT. As far as I'm concerned DG IV isn't even over yet since we have a couple outstanding CC's to resolve.

Anyway, I for one am against letting those at the chat form the*will of the people* under any circumstances. If the chatgoers will not drop the issue then (given this close vote) it makes most sense to let the chatters stop play under certain conditions. Perhaps we could use your numbers as a basis for a quorum to decide if play could actually be halted.

 

[donsig]

Well, just one more post before I call it a night. Seems we held a poll about who should be allowed to halt the chat. If *DP only* is the winner of that poll then we shouldn't really ignore that poll and give the chat attendees the power to stop the chat.

 

[Sarevok]

Then why don't you word it like this:

"In the event that an instruction must be changed to ensure the survival of the state because enemy soldiers are pouring over our borders, then it should be allowed"

Why we need such a rule is beyond me. In four demogames we've never come close to this situation - not even during the infamous Aztec War of term three DG III.

Nobody can tell the future, this might happen.

 

[Sarevok]

Any suggestions as to what the compromise might be? You've said that giving those at the chat the sole power to stop the chat wouold be a good compromise. While disagree with the idea I'm certainly willing to discuss it. Under what conditions would we allow a halt in play to be requested? How many votes would it take to actually force the halt? Anyone have any specific proposals?

I think the following conditions would be suitable for a stop of play:

- A severe mix-up in instructions, leading to complete chaos in the TC
- A Declaration of war against us
- The wholesale collapse of our armies on the field
- Any other time when a crisis is created in the game

However, by "crisis" i mean sever crisis that could casue the face of the game to change dramatically, such as seeing large numbers of units in our territory, or if we are facing economic collapse. "Crisis" is not something that happens every day, but mabye once or twice during a game.

 

[Sarevok]

Well, just one more post before I call it a night. Seems we held a poll about who should be allowed to halt the chat. If *DP only* is the winner of that poll then we shouldn't really ignore that poll and give the chat attendees the power to stop the chat.

I agree with you on this one. The power must also rest in the people at the TC.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I believe we have already had laws in the past that required the turn chat to stop in the event of certain circumstances. Why not use those?

I honestly don't understand this fear of a dictatorship thing. If CC's are prosecuted in a timely manner, the issue is resolved.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

This poll is misunderstood.

everyone arguing against this needs to stop, think, and figure out if they are arguing against the question or the interpretation.

I am arguing against both

I know exactly what this leads too. More power to run the game via turn chat and less incentive to run the game in the forums. it is hard enough to get good discussion about the game as it is.

 

[Sarevok]

I believe we have already had laws in the past that required the turn chat to stop in the event of certain circumstances. Why not use those?

I honestly don't understand this fear of a dictatorship thing. If CC's are prosecuted in a timely manner, the issue is resolved.

Thats the problem, CC's were not dealt with in a timely fashion.

 

[Sarevok]

I am arguing against both

I know exactly what this leads too. More power to run the game via turn chat and less incentive to run the game in the forums. it is hard enough to get good discussion about the game as it is.

with all the judicial crap, on the other hand an effort to get the will of the people rather than the will of the chat would encourage discussion, as who wants an elitist group to run the show?

 

[Falcon02]

First, when did it become normal around here to consistantly post multiple posts consecutively in one thread within minutes of each other?

Secondly, I agree with giving the people at the T/C (assuming a certain population, and not neccisarily based on forum population) having the power to halt a T/C. Donsig, voiced fear that this would encourage a crippling "mob rule" against unpopular Presidents.
However, I disagree, those at the T/C want to play the game, they want to participate. They DO NOT want to halt their own game experience over some political argument.

 

[Cyc]

As a long-time player of the Democracy games, I can definately tell who wants the outcome of this poll to be "yes". It's such a shame that the recruiting methods, or just plain adding votes to the count is still practiced here.

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. Gee, I wonder why....

 

[eyrei]

As a long-time player of the Democracy games, I can definately tell who wants the outcome of this poll to be "yes". It's such a shame that the recruiting methods, or just plain adding votes to the count is still practiced here.

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. Gee, I wonder why....

Moderator Action: Enough of your baseless allegations, Cyc. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Chieftess]

Cyc, not everything is a conspiracy theory. Still, the people have spoken - People *CAN* elect to stop the chat if they deem it's needed. Think of it as a system of checks and balances. 10 voices are better than 1.

 

[Noldodan]

This poll has 28 votes. All the other polls have less than 20 votes. People, I doubt there's anyway the ones in charge of this game are going to allow anything other than a "YES" winning option. Notice even though we have a new feature that allows us to verify who votes, this option is not used. Gee, I wonder why....

Actually, I elected NOT to use that option so no one could judge someone based on their vote unless they purposely posted it here. As for why it has more votes, maybe that's because it's dragging people out of the woodwork.

 

[Sarevok]

Actually, I elected NOT to use that option so no one could judge someone based on their vote unless they purposely posted it here. As for why it has more votes, maybe that's because it's dragging people out of the woodwork.

Good Idea, as in this place that could lead to many future problems in the DG crowd. We have already seen that things things that happen in the DG can mark you for good, even if you end up being completely different later.