Chat Powers

[Strider]

What should the powers of citizens that attend the chats be?

I think the only power a citizen should have inside of the chat is the ability to stop the chat and take something to the forums for discussion. Other than that, it should be up to the DP to ask the citizens inside of the chat for advice or suggestions.

 

[Nobody]

why what other powers do they currently have?

 

[Strider]

why what other powers do they currently have?

Currently, whatever the DP gives them I believe. Our constitution says very little over the matter, and it's extremely unclear.

However, I do believe allowing the Citizens in the chat to stop the chat would be an excellent power (the only power mind you) to the chat-goers. Of course, certain guidelines/rules would have to be put in place, one citizen deciding to stop the chat is not very democratic, even while many agree. Maybe a simple majority of active partcipants? Or All partcipants?

 

[Nobody]

didnt it use to be they could have votes on stuff, and there was conerveues cause a president hade a 0-0 vote then added their deciding vote?

 

[Strider]

didnt it use to be they could have votes on stuff, and there was conerveues cause a president hade a 0-0 vote then added their deciding vote?

Yes, there use to be Council Votes (Only leaders) and Spot Votes (citizens). I believe it was Shaitan who broke a 0-0 tied vote.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

On the surface, it sounds like someone is gearing up for a donsig presidency.

I have wrestled with favoring the idea of giving chatgoers the power to stop a chat, but still feel that it would be an unwise move. There is just no way to tell who will show up to represent the nation.

I always liked the idea of council votes, but that always seemd too elitist for some. It could still be a way to give elected representatives some kind of veto power over a DP in chat. then again, it's dependent of who shows up in chat so it likely wouldn't fly.

 

[Crimso]

If at least 50% of the people who regularly vote went to the turn chats, I would definitly support this. But I have faith in the "Higher-Uppers". If there is a situation where the turn chat should be stopped I'm sure they'll handle it. I'm not saying you do or do not have faith in them Strider; am I correct in thinking that your recent proposals serve to add tighter definitions more than anything else?

 

[Strider]

If at least 50% of the people who regularly vote went to the turn chats, I would definitly support this. But I have faith in the "Higher-Uppers". If there is a situation where the turn chat should be stopped I'm sure they'll handle it. I'm not saying you do or do not have faith in them Strider; am I correct in thinking that your recent proposals serve to add tighter definitions more than anything else?

My recent proposals have been directed to making things clearer and adding things that were left out from our constitution.

 

[blackheart]

I think we need to take power away from the chat and put it in the forums.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

The purpose of a turnchat should be to just informally talk about the demogame, and to 'listen in' as the DP plays the turns and gives a report - *not* a place to hold votes, as there are different people there each time.

 

[Noldodan]

*cough* To bring up not-too-ancient history, I might remind you of a previous effort to give the citizenry chat-stopping power. This poll was held as part of the planning section of DGV. All that still needed to be decided was the exact percentage of chat-goers needed to stop the chat.

 

[Black_Hole]

We can give the people at the chat the power to watch the game being played!
Seriously dont give people power there, for example:
There is 5 people at the chat and 3 of them really dislike a leaders instruction, they will force the DP to change that or they will stop the chat. This could go on 2 TCs in a row! and how would we get anything done?

 

[Strider]

We can give the people at the chat the power to watch the game being played!
Seriously dont give people power there, for example:
There is 5 people at the chat and 3 of them really dislike a leaders instruction, they will force the DP to change that or they will stop the chat. This could go on 2 TCs in a row! and how would we get anything done?

That's why you have qourums etc. put into place.

 

[Strider]

I would propose the following laws for chat stoppage.

For a chat stoppage to occur 1/3 of the current quorum must be attending that chat. The poll will take place during the chat and must receive 2/3's approval of the attending 1/3+.

If my logic is correct, 1/3 of the quorum will be 10-15 people. With about 7-9 votes approving the stoppage of a chat.

 

[MOTH]

I think you mean census, not quorum. We have differently defined quorums for different actions (CoL change vs Constitution change.) 55% of quorum is usually the breaking point I think.

Census will be 35 or 36 after this election. 33% will be 11 or 12 depending on rounding. You should specify how rounding will be handled as well.

 

[GenMarshall]

I would propose the following laws for chat stoppage.

For a chat stoppage to occur 1/3 of the current quorum must be attending that chat. The poll will take place during the chat and must receive 2/3's approval of the attending 1/3+.

If my logic is correct, 1/3 of the quorum will be 10-15 people. With about 7-9 votes approving the stoppage of a chat.

I would agree with this proposal, At least it gives power to the people to halt the chat when the DP decides to go rampaging and play the game against the WOTP.

 

[Strider]

I think you mean census, not quorum. We have differently defined quorums for different actions (CoL change vs Constitution change.) 55% of quorum is usually the breaking point I think.

Census will be 35 or 36 after this election. 33% will be 11 or 12 depending on rounding. You should specify how rounding will be handled as well.

Census... quorum... same thing. It's just like PI and CC, differant name, but the exact same thing.

That's exactly the numbers I'm lookng for, I'm looking for 1/3 to be between 10 and 15 people. Rounding should be handled as the lowest number, it shouldn't make a huge differance, and give alittle more power to an almost powerless proposal.

 

[ravensfire]

I would agree with this proposal, At least it gives power to the people to halt the chat when the DP decides to go rampaging and play the game against the WOTP.

How? If you've got a rampaging DP, ignoring the WOTP, then what makes you think they will listen to you at the chat?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

How? If you've got a rampaging DP, ignoring the WOTP, then what makes you think they will listen to you at the chat?

-- Ravensfire

They might not listen, however, it does give a legal stopping point in the game. A point that we could go back to.

Although, the main reason for this proposal is just simply to allow citizens the ability to take things to the forum.

 

[GenMarshall]

On the surface, it sounds like someone is gearing up for a donsig presidency.

That reality has been shattered .