Citizens Discussion: When Should The DP Stop The Game?

[Immortal]

we are writing this under the assumption that there areno turn chats anymore, where citizens arenot polled.

This thread is a response to donsigs decision to end turn chats all together, in hopes of creating rules whereby the DP is obligated to discontinue play.

 

[Noldodan]

Then perhaps the exception clause could be something like "unless directed not to by a citizen vote presented by the Domestic Leader."

 

[Cyc]

@Noldodan -

It could be done with"Legal Instructions" posted in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread (unless under the current discussion someone wanted to name it the "Play Session Instruction Thread). But that pretty much seems like a waste of time. Someone would have to run a poll asking the citizens if they would allow the DP to keep playing if a GL was produced from any battle. Then some Leader of some Department would have to post an Instruction that said something similair to "according to this poll the citizens have chosen not to stop the Gameplay if a GL is attained until further notice..." or whatever. Either that or that someone would have to run a poll for each turn chat just for that purpose. I can't see making a Law in the CoL just to put a back door on it that would require an awful lot of work.

 

[Veera Anlai]

Excuse me Immortal, but I fully expect public Turn Chats to be recontinued at some point in the future. It would be foolish and nearsighted to write laws for the assumption that they *won't* be reinstated.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Excuse me Immortal, but I fully expect public Turn Chats to be recontinued at some point in the future. It would be foolish and nearsighted to write laws for the assumption that they *won't* be reinstated.

Not really, Veera. If the laws are written to this Standard then the quality of the Instructions will improve to the point where they could be used in Play Sessions rather than Turn Chats. That's the good part about this discussion. Beyond that, if 1 or more Play Sessions were to be used again in the future for whatever reason, then we would be prepared for them and no new laws would have to be written. I believe it would be foolish and close-minded to try to cut down Immortals effort. This is the proper way it should be handled.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I'm not trying to cut down his effort. I'm just stating that *one* of the reasons to end a turn chat early would be a citizen spot vote, not that it should be the only reason. If we have public turn chats in the future, having this clause would be nearly a necessity. And if we don't have them, it won't do any harm, will it?

 

[Noldodan]

*Strategic bump.* This thread has been bumped for purposes related to the recent discussion on spot votes.

SO, should we bring the list of chat-ending situations to a vote, or do we need to add more first?

 

[deshelbr]

I like that idea, only we may need to poll on each item suggested as a chat-ender. I'm of a extreme minority opinion that nothing should stop a turn-chat short of ******************.

 

[Noldodan]

Deshelbr, I would edit that post before you get lynched by the forum-goers. Heck, I'm considering it myself. But, more seriously, your suggestion about how to poll it is a good one. Now go edit!

 

[Noldodan]

I there ever was a time to bump this thread, the time is now. SO, is this list fine, or should we go to the polls?

 

[DaveShack]

It was quite confusing to read this thread, until I noticed the dates. Let's review the options.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
If an event we didn't think of comes up it ought to be sufficiently unusual that the DP will fall off his chair with shock and immediately return to the forum to tell us of the startling news - if we do a proper job here and our leaders do a good job with their instructions.

The problem I see with this one, is we have had events which should have caused the DP to "fall off his chair" and instead of doing so he just carried on without consulting anyone about the new conditions. Saying "we didn't plan for that so I get to do whatever feels right" is not an excuse for taking over when something unforseen or unplanned occurs.

I would be in favor of this general principle, and would encourage further discussion on how to define it legally.

The DP should stop any time in-game conditions do not match posted instructions, and it is possible to stop. If it is not possible to stop (a popup or AI-initiatied diplomacy) and there are no instructions for that condition, the DP may handle the unstoppable situation according to insert stuff here. In any such event, as soon as the game reaches a point where it can be saved, the DP must save and stop immediately.

My opinion is that the stuff to be inserted should include this list, though it requires some fine-tuning:

• Instructions in the chat from the leader responsible for the area in question, if present. (Note this is the actual leader, not a representative)
• General sentiment on the forum regarding the issue at hand.
• Advice from citizens present at the chat.
• DP's playing skill.

 

[donsig]

Let's cut the rhetoric. Two years after Civ III has been released, how many really unexpected things happen? How are they unexpected? Let me count the ways...

1) Things that take everyone by surprise
a) major things
b) minor things

2) Things that take only the DP by surprise
a) major things
b) minor things

3) Things that take only citizens by surprise
a) major things
b) minor things

4) Things that take only forum posters by surprise
a) major things
b) minor things

5) Things that take only chat goers by surprise
a) major things
b) minor things

I guess there could be more combinations but I hope these are enough to get my point across.

Now there are only two ways to decide if a chat should be stopped:

1) DP decides
2) Someone else at the game play session decides

I do not see how anyone not at the session (i.e., someone not privy to the surprise that has occurred) can stop the chat. If someone not there is worried before hand that something might happen then, if that something does happen, well, can we really say it was unexpected? If it's not unexpected then it can be planned for, nicht war?

OK, next step. Someone at the game play session is faced with a decision to stop the chat. There are two questions that person must answer:

1) Is this really an unexpected event? 2) If so then is it of significant importance to stop play?

Are these to be answered subjectively or objectively? If it's not to be objective, i.e. if there's nothing coded in that says we have to stop then it's left up to the decision maker's judgement. And if it is to be left to someone's judegement then we cannot hold them responsible for bad judgements!

It seems to me it would be much easier to take things as they come rather than try to make rules to cover all scenarios. Here are some practical suggestions:

1) Make a law stating the maximum number of turns that can be played
2) Make a game play session schedule for the whole game. For instance stipulate that sessions will be held on Wednesdays and Saturdays, time to be set by the President.
3) Allow for polls to set special cut-offs. For example, say there's a trade due to expire in 7 turns. The trade advisor wants to look at new prospects before the deal is renewed. Let him or her post a poll asking that the session be stopped after 7 turns. If the citizens approve then the session must be stopped then. The actual instruction to stop could be posted by the chief justice or head of the senate depending on who we want to entrust with the responsibility.

 

[DaveShack]

donsig,

I'm trying to make it very simple. If there are no instructions to handle an event, then stop as soon as possible and take it back to the forum. Taking a concrete example, if the TC just started, and one of the AIs declares war, and there are no instructions on what to do if that happens, then the right thing to do is save before making any moves on our turn and start discussions in the forum as to how to handle the war. This applies even if 0 turns have happened during the chat, and it should not require a "if war is declared, stop" instruction from one of the leaders.

Instead during term 3 there were several instances of leaders posting "if xyz happens then stop play" instructions. It is understandable in a way that you ignored those instructions by declaring them illegal since there was no law permitting an instruction which stopped play (nor was there a law forbidding that kind of instruction). What is not understandable is that stopping was the right thing to do if those events happened, and you placed making a point about the law above actual game play. I want to make sure we have some kind of play-stopping law in effect so that can never happen again.

For an example of handling it the right way, look at the play sessions that DZ and Ravensfire cancelled to try to ensure enough forum participation prior to resuming play.

 

[FortyJ]

Whatever happened to entrusting these decisions to the designated player? Generally speaking, the DP is going to be the President, Vice President, or Domestic Leader (typically people who are all very involved in the game and generally abreast of the discussions taking place in the forum).

Furthermore, I am quite opposed to any proposal that would allow a vote of citizens present at the chat to force an end to the chat. Anyone opposed to citizen spot votes should be equally opposed to such a proposal as it opens the door for potential filibustering.

I see no harm in keeping the decision to end the chat solely in the discretion of the DP. One would have to assume, of course, that the DP would act responsibly and not use personal decisions in the course of playing the game but rather rely on decisions made in the forums and in the event that such decisions are lacking, then stop the chat to allow for adequate discussion on the subject.

 

[zorven]

I agree with FortyJ. I would like leaders to be able to make decisions, not be limited to only being able to follow posted instructions or detailed contingencies outlined by law.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by FortyJ
Whatever happened to entrusting these decisions to the designated player?

Please take a look at the first turnchat of Term 3. That's what happened to entrusting these decisions to the DP.

Furthermore, I am quite opposed to any proposal that would allow a vote of citizens present at the chat to force an end to the chat. Anyone opposed to citizen spot votes should be equally opposed to such a proposal as it opens the door for potential filibustering.

I think we should allow a vote of citizens present to force an end to the chat, if a major event occurs. We can word a law or standard so that the citizens are only allowed to force an end to the chat if something major occurs, subject to Judicial Review, and perhaps we should have three citizens in the chat initiate it before it is put to a vote. I think the potential for a filibuster is much less than the potential for the DP to abuse the ability to play on as far as he wanted.

I see no harm in keeping the decision to end the chat solely in the discretion of the DP. One would have to assume, of course, that the DP would act responsibly and not use personal decisions in the course of playing the game but rather rely on decisions made in the forums and in the event that such decisions are lacking, then stop the chat to allow for adequate discussion on the subject.

Unfortunately, not all DP's will act responsibly as far as the issue of stopping the chat after an unforseen event is concerned.

 

[zorven]

I think I would rather have the occassional problem than a totalitarian ruleset. And I think the citizens at a chat should have no power; they are merely spectators.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I think that the elected officials should anicipate several things happening. They can post their instructions in the TC-instructions thread, when they see the situation occuring.

In my opinion they responsible official should anticipate on situations going to happen, for instnace meet barbs, new civs (early on, new techs and facing advanced units (early on).

And war declarations can usually be predicted (troops in our lands, tech advantage of a neighbour, "furious" attiude towards us and expiring peace treaties).

The same is true for tech and trades. Both could issue a list of desired techs and allowed amounts to be payd ( combined with Domestic).

Negligence of these instrutions allows the DP automatically to decide upon these.

But I do think the T/C needs \an emergency break. Possibly when sufficeient elected offifials vote NO, or ask to stop the TC.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Rik Meleet

But I do think the T/C needs \an emergency break. Possibly when sufficeient elected offifials vote NO, or ask to stop the TC.

During the Turn Chat or before?

 

[DaveShack]

The potential problem comes up when the game situation has changed so that existing instructions are no longer valid. For example, an invasion force suddenly appears on our borders, and most cities have culture first in the queue -- do we blindly continue building libraries when what is needed is to switch to military and maybe rush units too?

Sure, the DP could proceed as previously planned, or unilaterally change production and possibly face the wrath of the governors. Why not have a rule which says if things change significantly where the instructions don't reflect reality, then you must stop?

And yes, this type of event should not happen out of the blue. A good military leader will know when we're weak enough to be invasion bait and deal with the situation. A good domestic leader will take steps to ask the governors for balanced production. But what if someone can't give it their full attention for a couple of days? That is all it would take for this type of situation to come up, even with the best leaders.

I don't think stopping game play for good cause can ever be a bad idea. This is one area where the chat can protect forum goers who do not participate in the chat. Ironically it appears that some who might prefer a strictly forum game with no chat are against the one thing about the chat with potential to ensure their voice is heard in the forum.