Citizen Initiative - Game Play Session Scheduling

[donsig]

Here is my proposal for an initiative (in the form of a mock poll):

Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative

Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session. Said announcement must include:

• The date and time the game play session will start
• The Designated Player for the session
• A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread
• The purpose of the game play session

Should the Game Play Scheduling Initiative be binding:

Yes
No

This is a private poll.
This poll will be open for 7 days.

[Link to this discusison thread will go here.]

Please feel free to discuss. Unlike our current leader I will give you all more than a few minutes for this before I post an actual poll.

 

[dutchfire]

A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread

Why? The announcement can serve as instruction thread.

The purpose of the game play session

To play turns/To do in-game actions
This will just lead to another line the DP has to copy, without any purpose to it.

This poll will be open for 7 days.

Quite long isn't it?

Unlike our current leader I will give you all more than a few minutes for this before I post an actual poll.

:thumbdown Getting personal again?

 

[ravensfire]

Would a post in the Designated Player's thread be considered sufficient under this proposal?

I don't want to see massive spammage, as we have announcement threads plus instruction thread. I would consider posting in the DP thread sufficient.

Otherwise - very nice.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Why? The announcement can serve as instruction thread.

See my comment - I think I know what he's after here.

To play turns/To do in-game actions
This will just lead to another line the DP has to copy, without any purpose to it.

Special vs Regular

:thumbdown Getting personal again?

:thumbdown Taking it personally again?

-- Ravensfire

 

[730195]

I think these are quite reasonable guidelines, but I'd prefer not to see them cast in concrete. If there has been a period of discussion that didn't turn up significant objection, I don't see an absolute requirement to add another 24 hour delay after that point. Requiring such a delay might encourage people to announce new play times before the discussion had taken place just in case the discussion headed that way. That said, perhaps folks contemplating an EARLY RESUMPTION OF PLAY will take care to make that painfully obvious in the discussion.

 

[dutchfire]

Taking it personally again?

I'm not our current leader, am I?

 

[DaveShack]

Generally speaking, I am against having set minimum timeframes. I'm almost always against them, because when we do have timeframes, sooner or later a court case will result. Someone takes an action that an overwhelming percentage of sane citizens should agree with, but gets dinged on "process". The incident which prompted this initiative is exactly that.

You're protesting the process -- there are no significant protests on the actual in-game action. Some questions on the path, like half a movement point really matters, but everyone thought moving the scout before settling was a good idea.

Thinking back, I've never seen a special session where anyone complained about the action taken in the session. Any complaints have always been about process. Usually it's someone who says something like "I'm not here on the weekends", with the attitude that we can't make any decisions at all unless that one citizen's input is heard. Should I ask the game to be shutdown for the duration of my business trips, or on the days I have soccer practices and games, or on my daughter's birthday? Of course not.

I'm in favor of certain set maximum timeframes, for example initiative polls being open a maximum of 4 (or even 3) days, and the Court having a maximum of 3 days to rule on a case.

 

[ravensfire]

You're protesting the process -- there are no significant protests on the actual in-game action. Some questions on the path, like half a movement point really matters, but everyone thought moving the scout before settling was a good idea.

But disagreed on WHERE to move the scout.

I'm in favor of certain set maximum timeframes, for example initiative polls being open a maximum of 4 (or even 3) days, and the Court having a maximum of 3 days to rule on a case.

And that's just as bad as a minimum.

24 hours. 1 day. That's it. You want to hold a special session - say so and wait a day. You think you might need a special session - say your going to, and if you decide otherwise, cancel it.

Or would you rather we have DP's declare a session to start in 30 minutes. And hey look - no instructions can be posted!

1 single day. Stop looking at the reason for this, and look at the proposal itself, DaveShack. Do 24 hours impose an undue restriction? If we've got leadership that delays and waits until the last second, yeah, they're going to think so. If we've got leaders that actually lead, and look ahead, no, it's not going to be a restriction.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Hyronymus]

Ok, this is OFF TOPIC. Again, we're venting our frustration instead of discussing the initial post.

I think that the current TCIT topics are explanatory enough but they have one problem:

Only elected/appointed officials or citizens posting initiative instructions may post in this thread!

Why not allow everyone to post in it without the need for structured initiatives? Formal initiatives take time to be read, polled and finalised and I think we can do well without such bureaucracy by having open discussions in the TCIT topics.

 

[Methos]

Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session. Said announcement must include:

• The date and time the game play session will start
• The Designated Player for the session
• A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread
• The purpose of the game play session

Would a post in the Designated Player's thread be considered sufficient under this proposal?

As First Deputy with the DP Pool as my responsibility, I strongly agree that the DP should post his intention in the DP thread. This should state when they plan on playing and either link their instruction thread or state when they will post it. This way every citizen only has to watch one thread in order to know when the next turn session is and for those of us who watch our User CP it'll make things even easier to keep track of.

To be honest, I've been thinking of contacting both Ice and our legal officers to see if I can require something of the sort. If not, I'd at least strongly suggest it.

This poll will be open for 7 days.

I totally disagree with this. Four days I can understand, but seven? Are you trying to slow the game down?

I like the idea of your initiative Donsig, but the way its written currently I'd say no.

Suggestions: Remove the purpose in your list. That will be covered by the officers instructions. Add in a post in the DP thread so that everyone needs to only monitor one thread and not track new threads that don't show up in our User CP.

@Donsig: Currently I'd say no to this initiative. With a few changes I'd agree to it.

 

[Hyronymus]

Methos, I believe our post crossed.

 

[Methos]

Methos, I believe our post crossed.

Yeah, thanks as this post pointed out the other one.

I think that the current TCIT topics are explanatory enough but they have one problem:

Only elected/appointed officials or citizens posting initiative instructions may post in this thread!

Why not allow everyone to post in it without the need for structured initiatives?

Typically officer instructions were discussed prior to their posting in discussion threads where everyone was allowed to post. Once the instruction thread appears the officer than takes the information they gained from the discussion threads and posts their instructions in the restricted threads.

Another thing, if everyone was allowed to post in the instruction threads theres a good chance the officers instructions would get lost in the multitude of posts.

I believe because we currently haven't done very much discussions it doesn't appear as our debates are getting recognized in the instruction threads. Hopefully we'll all discuss more in the future.

 

[ravensfire]

I think that the current TCIT topics are explanatory enough but they have one problem:

Only elected/appointed officials or citizens posting initiative instructions may post in this thread!

Why not allow everyone to post in it without the need for structured initiatives? Formal initiatives take time to be read, polled and finalised and I think we can do well without such bureaucracy by having open discussions in the TCIT topics.

The intention is that the TCIT does NOT become a spammy thread. Being a DP is a pain, especially in the middle-late stages of the game when there is a lot going on.

The instruction thread should only contain instructions - nothing else. This lets the DP read through the thread, and they know that everything in there should be valid instructions.

Discussions should be in the official's threads or in specific threads in the citizen forum. A great practice all of our leaders should get into is the habit of posting "proposed" instructions in their threads well in advance of the session. This does allow for the discussion that's needed. Posting instructions 30 minutes before a session does nothing helpful.

Note that having a 24 hour delay HELPS with this, as it gives leaders time to post instructions early, and citizen's time to review the instructions.

Currently, our law does allow for the Chieftain to call for a special session, post it, play it and do it all in 5 minutes. This proposal would prevent that, by putting that 1 day (one single day) delay in there. It doesn't have to interfere with normal sessions, and generally won't. It just prevents abuse and problems.

One single day.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

I think that the proposal as currently written is very reasonable. A day's notice before scheduling is not a cumbersome regulation, as has been stated - I could think of a hundred more encumbering measures that would better protect the interests of the people. By at least ensuring a bare minimum of forewarning, we can prevent the worst abuses of the DP's power.

 

[DaveShack]

The devil's in the details. Take a case exactly like the most recent one. We had been discussing having a special session for 2 days, twice as long as this initiative is requesting. It wasn't in its own thread, and there wasn't a preannouncement of when the session would be, but it certainly wasn't a complete surprise, at least not to those actually participating in the discussion.

This proposal adds process. Going by the example of last game, too much process is bad.

Should there be a delay? I was surprised there wasn't one. If it were me, I would have had one. Should it be an initiative? I don't think so. Should we require specific information to be posted in a specific place? No, too much process. You've voiced your unhappieness with the administration, now let's see what effect that has.

 

[ravensfire]

Yup - we talked about it, and talked about it. And NOTHING definite was said. Talk is cheap, DaveShack. I can say lots of things, but here, what matters is that few official posts we require/ask for.

At ANY TIME in that 2 days of discussion, ice2k4 could have said "We're having a special session to do some moves. Specifics to come later." I'd have been happier about that. That did not happen. We got "leaning" and "probably".

The timing and the utter lack of ability for people to comment on the instructions was surprising. To have it happen AGAIN was shocking and insulting.

24 hours.

1 single day.

If that's too much of a delay, and too much of a process, I'll simply schedule my next session 30 minutes after I post the instruction thread. After all, we don't want any delays, do we?

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

The timing and the utter lack of ability for people to comment on the instructions was surprising. To have it happen AGAIN was shocking and insulting.

Again? We've only had one special session.

Or do you mean the lack of instructions for your session? Lacking evidence to the contrary, I have to come down on the side of sympathy over his not having an opportunity to post earlier given a RL emergency. I have had cases myself where I couldn't meet the instructions deadline for a similar reason.

To be honest, I found the lack of any discussion or instructions on first production to be more disturbing.

I am not opposed to the one day, I'd just handle it differently than creating an initiative.

 

[donsig]

I totally disagree with this. Four days I can understand, but seven? Are you trying to slow the game down?

How in heaven's name does the length of this poll slow the game down? Is everyone going to stop playing when I post this poll and then hold their breath till it's done? Life and the game goes on as it has been. Once the poll is over then if the initiative passed we follow it form that point on.

Suggestions: Remove the purpose in your list. That will be covered by the officers instructions. Add in a post in the DP thread so that everyone needs to only monitor one thread and not track new threads that don't show up in our User CP.

@Donsig: Currently I'd say no to this initiative. With a few changes I'd agree to it.

Like everyone else you are free to vote the way you want. I don't see anything wrong or cumbersome with having the purpose stated. If it's a regular play session then that's all that has to be stated. If it's a special session to move the scout (or whatever) then we say it's a special session to move the scout. Requiring one line of text to give us all an idea of what's going on is not too much to ask.

In an effort to keep the initiative simple and easy to understand, I purposefully did not specify the exact form of the announcement. A TCIT could indeed act as an announcement, right? I'd prefer that we dedicate a thread (that can be subscribed to) so we all have a fair means of knowing when an announcement has been made. If there is already a dedicated thread for TCITs that might work great. I honestly don't know what's out there since I have little time and there are so many DG threads now.

For the record, way back in term one or two of the first Civ III democracy game (back before you joined us DaveShack) we made a rule requiring 24 hour notice of a game play session. I consider this to be an unwritten law of DGs. It was broken so for this game I see the need to actually put the old rule into writing.

There are so many threads in the DG forum now that it is very difficult to know where game play stuff is actually being discussed. I'm on CivFanatics at least once a day (even on weekends DaveShack). But I didn't notice any discussion about actually moving one of our units. If it had been made more clear that such a discussion was taking place I would have taken part in it. We need a thread we can subscribe to so we can be alerted that something is afoot. Passing this initiative (even if it is not perfect) is a big step towards reaching that goal.

 

[Methos]

Like everyone else you are free to vote the way you want.

Okay, I was under the impression that this thread was meant to discuss the initiative, not that you were stating this is how it is, if you don't like it, tough. Do you not want to discuss it, or is it your way only, vote or don't?

But I didn't notice any discussion about actually moving one of our units.

It was discussed in one thread which I currently can't remember the name of. I do recall the thread title had nothing to do with the discussion we had, so I can understand how it was missed. It was also brought up in the DP thread located in the Offices sub-forum, which I would have thought anything in that sub-forum would be something players would pay attention to.

We need a thread we can subscribe to so we can be alerted that something is afoot.

Once again, let me point out the Term 1: Designated Player Pool thread. If you bother to look at it (and hopefully subscribe), you would have known about the discussion on the special play session on Friday @1829 GMT with this post. Recall, the special session didn't happen until Sunday.

Again, let me reiterate, subscribe to the DP thread, as I will be posting there (and hopefully the DP players) to keep everything up to date.

 

[ravensfire]

Methos,

My problem with how that was handled still stands. Yes, it was presented as an option. It was NOT declared as happening until 3/4/2006 @ 9:41 am. TCIT posted 2.5 hours later, played 2 minutes after that. Objected 4 minutes after TCIT posted.

2.5 hours notice from the statement that the special session was happening until it was held. There are no earlier posts by ice2k4 stating that a special session would happen. Multiple posts suggested the possibility, but NO DEFINITIVE STATEMENT UNTIL 3/4/2007.

Seriously, would waiting a single day have hampered things? I would have pushed my session back a day, maybe two at most.

To donsig's proposal, if he doesn't mind a slight revision, I'd suggest revising it to:

An Instruction Thread for each game session must be posted in the main forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of the session. This post must contain the schedule start date and time, a link the save to be used for the session, the Designated Player for that session and the type of session.

Does that really present a burden to anyone?

-- Ravensfire