Citizens Discussion: When Should The DP Stop The Game?

[Cyc]

quoting DaveShack:
Try quoting entire ideas, please.
__________________________________

I'm sorry, DS. I only quoted the second sentence in a two sentence paragraph. I was hoping most of us would realize that the second sentence was directly related to the first sentence. Most people can carry a thought from the begining of a paragraph to the end of the same paragraph. But I only wanted to quote the second sentence, so that those of us who let their thoughts drift during lengthy paragraphs such as this, be able to key on the point I was trying to make. This is not the first time you have accused me of trying to mislead people by not including a whole text. The whole point of a selected quote is to allow people to identify the point of the quote without much trouble. Please stop making accusations like this.

Also, about your last statement, this issue has been discussed over and over already. If the "chat-goers" are going to attend a chat with a Pres/DP they elected to guide them into the future, why would they want to baby-sit that individual at each t/c, telling them what to do all the time? We elect this individual as President because we believe in them, not to accept orders like a robot. The DP already has to follow all the Legal Instructions posted for him by his council and the Governors. That's a lot of work, especially with mid-chat instructions and "if this happens" instructions. If the "chat-goers could really guide the nation as well as the President, don't you think they would be President? They should only be allowed to give advice to the D/P. Period.

 

[FortyJ]

I must have missed a critical step in the evolution of the DP from that of an enviable position to one that needed constant supervision and deserving of everyone's mistrust. Could someone please explain to me how this mutation occurred?

 

[Cyc]

I better not go there, 40J.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Cyc

If the "chat-goers" are going to attend a chat with a Pres/DP they elected to guide them into the future, why would they want to baby-sit that individual at each t/c, telling them what to do all the time?

By that logic, why would any citizen want to baby-sit the Pres/DP in the forum either? Why have democratic decisions at all -- we can just make it a SG with at-bats which last a month, and elect the next person to be "up".

If I may try to get us back on track,

Going back to the original topic of the thread, we're trying to decide when the DP must stop. Fundamentally this is not a chat vs. forum issue, it is an isue of how we want to handle in-game change. Discussion of ideal leaders who anticipate every possible situation looks great in theory -- just make the leaders plan more and then we won't ever see an unexpected change where instructions for the session no longer make sense. In practice, people make mistakes.

The message should be, if things change to the extent that existing instructions are no longer valid, then stop.

Regardless of implementation, is this a good thing to do, a bad thing, or a non-issue?

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by DaveShack
...if things change to the extent that existing instructions are no longer valid, then stop.

Again, I must have missed something along the way during DG3, because I always thought that this was exactly how the system worked. The DP would stop the chat once: 1) too many "minor" decisions were needed, or 2) a major/irreversible decision was needed. This was always left up to the DP to decide, and in my opinion should remain that way.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

The DP, especially when it is the President, has already had their position validated by a majority of the people in the most recent election.

That individual has, by definition, a mandate to carryout the will of the people, and exercise their judgement to best meet the needs of the nation.

I feel the DP must always be the sole person empowered to end a chat, as they will be held responsible for the consequences either way.

The election by the entire populace is an important point, for in most chats, it is the sitting DP who has had the most recent demonstrated level of support from both the forum and chat goers. It is not right to hamstring that individual making them more accountable to a smaller subset of the populace.

Is it a perfect way of doing things? Not at all. However, giving the DP descretion in this matter is, in my opinion, the best solution.

 

[Cyc]

Well said, Bill. I hope you will find time to join us in DG4.