Don't get me wrong, I agree to the waiting 24 hours part. I'm just tired of hearing that...
.. when there was.
Citizen Initiative - Game Play Session Scheduling
- Thread starter donsig
- Start date
Don't get me wrong, I agree to the waiting 24 hours part. I'm just tired of hearing that...
.. when there was.
ice2k4
Emperor
I'm going to agree on this initiative, as the drawback, which are few and minor, are heavily outweighed by it preventing controversy that has happened in the past. It's more of a "Let's be safe than sorry rule" and based on the current controversy this rule helps eliminate mistakes.
However, donsig, I do not appreciate you slipping in those tiny comments. Although the issue does partially pertain to this discussion, you might want to thread the needle into the rest of your original post. If you have such a problem with my actions, maybe pm'ing me and actually discussing like people might help, not unnecessary jabs.
Remember this thread isn't for arguing whether what I did was right or not, no matter who you side with. If you want to use my actions as example to pass or disapprove this initiative, that's fine. If you would like to further discuss the current controversy, please do it in the immediate turnchat thread, where discussion is being held, or simply make a new thread. You are all free to PM me.
However, donsig, I do not appreciate you slipping in those tiny comments. Although the issue does partially pertain to this discussion, you might want to thread the needle into the rest of your original post. If you have such a problem with my actions, maybe pm'ing me and actually discussing like people might help, not unnecessary jabs.
Remember this thread isn't for arguing whether what I did was right or not, no matter who you side with. If you want to use my actions as example to pass or disapprove this initiative, that's fine. If you would like to further discuss the current controversy, please do it in the immediate turnchat thread, where discussion is being held, or simply make a new thread. You are all free to PM me.
robboo
Deity
I like Ravenfires additions and would support that. Something needs to change
donsig
Low level intermediary
Yes, this thread is to discuss the initiative. Discussion does not mean that I have to accept every change that's suggested. Your suggestion was to remove the purpose. That's too big a change for me to accept. I put down my reasons earlier. If you still choose to vote against it then that's just part of what we're doing here. You are also free to post your own proposal if you like.
I never go to the offices sub-forum uless I want to lodge a complaint with an official. I go to polls first to see if there's anything urgent to vote on. Lately the citizen's thread had been too full of spurious threads to find anything useful.
The DP thread that you point to is for term one, isnt' it? We have to subscribe to a thread every turn? Is it really too much to ask that we have one thread for the whole game? Well, two, because I want one with nice short summaries of what's been happening. But then again I've been asking for that since CivIIIDG2.
C'mon, buck up Old Boy! Jabs seem to be part of the demogame culture. Even Ravensfire jabbed me a few posts up. (As if trouncing me for Chief Justice wasn't enough for him!) Then there's DaveSahck's one liners... You need a tough skin to be in this game. Actually, it would help if you said something like this: In retrospect I made a bad desicision. I now see it as a bad decision and I will not make the same bad decision again. Instead of jabs youd get some high compliments. We all make mistakes and this first one of yours wasn't all that bad compared to some made by others in the past. (Like me asking those at the chat if we should continue playing or not. That was a doosey!) So hang in there and keep your wits about you.
Does this thread meet your needs? Can it be improved so that it does what you need?The DP thread that you point to is for term one, isnt' it? We have to subscribe to a thread every turn? Is it really too much to ask that we have one thread for the whole game? Well, two, because I want one with nice short summaries of what's been happening. But then again I've been asking for that since CivIIIDG2.
I was under the impression the problem was you didn't ask.
What we do here is tame. Don't go into OT without an asbestos suit, bulletproof vest, and a get out of jail free card.
I'm assuming that last word was a typo and you meant to say term. As to subscribing to one thread a month I don't see that thats asking too much. You have to take out an additional couple of minutes a month to subscribe to a single thread? Come on Donsig, you ask for something that already exists and your not willing to take the time to use it.
because I want one with nice short summaries of what's been happening. But then again I've been asking for that since CivIIIDG2.
I'm beginning to realize how much you complain about stuff without bothering to see if it already exists. Let me point you out to the Turnchat Schedule Thread/Summary Thread. Again Donsig, whats the deal. You are complaining about not having something that already exists!! And guess what, its a single thread for the whole game!
donsig
Low level intermediary
Yes, I meant term and not turn. Right now I subscribe to exactly one thread for the one PBEM game I am in. I get enough spam in my email I don't need a different thread to subscribe to every month. A bigger complaint I have is that I have to be on the lookout every month for a new thread to appear so I can subscribe to it. If I had that much time to devote here I think I find better things to do with that time.
That thread does not meet the criteria for what I'm asking for. I can't even get past the first sentence of the summary. That is all well and good for story telling I'm not looking for that. For the creation summary I want a screenshot of our starting position. I've been around the DG long enough to know that all we get from Creation Day is a starting position. A screenshot is the summary. It's not there. DaveShack made a screenshots thread. Great picture but nothing whatsoever useful for someone who wants to see the starting position without opening the save. What I've been asking for is not there.
Not all of us have a great deal of time to wander around looking for the information we want. If we want to keep participation high we need a thread that summarizes the game as it progresses so anyone coming in fresh (or returning after an absence) can catch up. we've never had that in four years of democracy games.
In addition to my comments above (since you point to the same thread as Methos) I'd say it does not meet the needs I see, though I'm not sure of this. There are four sessions in one post. When we subscribe to a thread do we get notices when a post is edited?
Aside from that, if you want me to look at that thread you need to remove that nasty four letter word from it. Gameplay session is a much better term.
Ah, you use the subscription by email option, so I can understand your reasoning. I've bookmarked the User CP (or My Account as they call it now), and say no to the email option. It makes things a lot easier as you only have to check your User CP to see if your important threads have been updated.
Once again, you complain rather than do. If you want the summary thread to be a certain way than why don't you take the job? All you had to do was PM the Chieftain and request it. Than you could create the summary thread the way you want it to be.
It's quite simple Donsig, if you want it a certain way than request the job and do it. Quit complaining because others are not doing it the way you want it. You have the opportunity to do it yourself, but rather than doing it, you just complain.
If you don't have the time due to RL responsibilities, that's fine and I understand, but don't complain about the way its done if your not willing or able to do it yourself.
Yeah, that was meant to be a thread where screenshots could be anchored. Some creative writing roleplay could have been started off that pic (in a different thread), but what we got was spam instead. I was tempted to bin the whole thing and start over, but y'all have this somewhat justified sensitivity to abrupt mod actions.
You have a legitimate complaint. I think I'll rename and close it, and start a new thread with the appropriate first post saying it's a screenshot thread, no spam, etc.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
To drag this back on topic ...
donsig, could you update your proposal based on the feedback here? I'd like to see this polled.
-- Ravensfire
donsig, could you update your proposal based on the feedback here? I'd like to see this polled.
-- Ravensfire
donsig
Low level intermediary
If I had the time or inclination to do the job I wouldn't need the summary in order to keep up with what's going on, now would I? And I wasn't complaining. I gave up complaining about this particular aspect of the DG a couple years ago. I was suggesting something that could be used to maintain and maybe even increase DG participation. I was also responding to a direct question that was put to me which is somehow supposed to be related to the topic of this thread. Instead of complaining about my suggestions, why don't you suggest some solutions?
I'd like to see it polled, too. Haven't seen anything in this thread to cause me to revise the proposal. There has been alot of talk about what form the announcement should take. Does that decision have to be part of the initiative? Isn't must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum straightforward enough? If I were going to change this it would be along the lines of must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum in a seperate post in a dedicated thread that will be used for the entire DG. Should we include that? I don't think it's necessary. My main concern here is to get a 24 hour advance notice of any game play session, not to have an announcement mechanism tailored to my specs. (If we were doing that then the initiative would be: donsig must be contacted at least 24 hours before any game play session.)
The only other proposed revision was removing the requirement about including the purpose of the session in the announcement. I've already said it's not too much to ask that a one line comment be included telling us whether it's a regular or special session so I've decided to leave that requirement in my proposal. As I said earlier you are all free to vote however you want for whatever reason you want and I won't prosecute any of you. I can't vouch for what DaveShack will do though.
Here is the original (and current) proposal:
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.]
Any comments on whether or not this iwould be an invalid poll?
24 hours advance notice that a special session is to be played is reasonable and I'll support that aspect of this initiative. It also seems reasonable that the purpose of the special session be specified.
Some questions: first, why not make the thread alerting us to the special session also serve as the instruction thread? I don't care if we have a separate instruction thread, but I'd prefer to have fewer threads to sort through.
Second, I suggest that we don't require the name of the designated player and the exact time of play to be specified 24 hours in advance. I can see an instance where we might see a need to hold a special session quickly, but we need some time to find out who can play it and at what time. Could the name and exact time be added later, perhaps within a reasonable time frame - say 12 hours (not five minutes) - before the session? It seems to me the important part is we have at least 24 hours to discuss what should happen in the special session. Knowing the exact time of the session is interesting, but not crucial to the discussion.
Some questions: first, why not make the thread alerting us to the special session also serve as the instruction thread? I don't care if we have a separate instruction thread, but I'd prefer to have fewer threads to sort through.
Second, I suggest that we don't require the name of the designated player and the exact time of play to be specified 24 hours in advance. I can see an instance where we might see a need to hold a special session quickly, but we need some time to find out who can play it and at what time. Could the name and exact time be added later, perhaps within a reasonable time frame - say 12 hours (not five minutes) - before the session? It seems to me the important part is we have at least 24 hours to discuss what should happen in the special session. Knowing the exact time of the session is interesting, but not crucial to the discussion.
Cool, something to constructively comment about.
The reason we usually need exact times is so that if it is an online session and citizens want to attend, they can make time in their schedules. Fractional or single turn sessions are not the type of social event that is likely to attract lots of people to a chat that will last 10 minutes. Personally, I'd be fine with knowing a window of some number of hours. The same can be said for offline sessions of any type.
As for who plays it, look beyond the special session and remember that this initiative really applies to every session, both special and regular. We sure do want to know who the DP is for regular sessions.
With Bertie's and my comments:
- The approximate date and time the game play session will start
- The Designated Player for the session, once it is known who is playing
donsig
Low level intermediary
IIRC, the term designated player originated back when we had a president who played the turns. Sometimes the president couldn't play so we had a chain of command in place. Our usage of the term recognizes that sometimes we don't know who the actual turn player will be until the session actually starts.
It is also important to know the exact play time so we all know what window is available for posting game play instructions.
It is also important to know the exact play time so we all know what window is available for posting game play instructions.
About exact time, can't the DP say: instructions should be in at 4 GMT, playing will begin between 4 and 5 GMT, or something like that?
That way the citizens won't get all upset because a DP got there a few minutes late because of RL issues.
That way the citizens won't get all upset because a DP got there a few minutes late because of RL issues.
The proposed poll asks for an announcement.
So, it looks no invalidity problems can arise.
The fourth point "purpose" can bring an hard time in its application, since it
is a "program command"; but that is another matter.
A good poll and initiative, IMO.
Best regards,
So, it looks no invalidity problems can arise.
The fourth point "purpose" can bring an hard time in its application, since it
is a "program command"; but that is another matter.
A good poll and initiative, IMO.
Best regards,
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Right now, we require that all instruction be made 1 hour before the scheduled start.
That gives citizens at least some time to see what the instructions are, and request changes or clarifications. Same for the DP - they can see what they're supposed to do, and get any of their questions out there.
That also gives the DP a known time where the instructions are final. As things go farther, DP's often do some prep work and organization to make their life easier.
1 hour before the start is a pretty small requirement.
I doubt anyone would be seriously upset about a DP running a bit late for any RL issue. We'd probably have CT going on about the old days, but that's about it. I'd say not worry about it unless it starts to become a major issue.
-- Ravensfire
donsig
Low level intermediary
My legal opinion is that the wording you're suggesting above does not conflict with the intiiative as proposed. The intiative doesn't say exact time.
As a DG player, I also do not see a problem with your wording. It's reasonable. Stretching the window beyond an hour there comes a point where it does become unreasonable. When it becomes unreasonable then not only would players begin to make objections, it would not adhere to the initiative either.
Falcon02
General
Well... there was one incident when the DP was conscripted by his parents during play, and it took 40 minutes or so, instead of 5 minutes.....
At least in that case no one got mad, mostly greatful when play resumed.
Similar threads
