1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Citizens Discussion: When Should The DP Stop The Game?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by Immortal, Jul 6, 2003.

  1. Noldodan

    Noldodan 2 years of waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    Gondolin!
    What happened to entrusting these decisions to the DP was that after the Aztec War started, donsig went and signed an alliance with the Greeks without doing two things: consulting Zarn (who WAS present at the chat and FA Leader) or taking it to the forums. There was NO REASON for that to have happened. Regardless of the informed state of the DP, things can easily go wrong.

    PS: I'm writing this without looking at the archives, so maybe the Greeks offered US the alliance, in which case my point about "taking it to the forums" is invalid. Regardless, Zarn should have gotten a chance to give his input.
     
  2. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    I don't have a problem setting up, in law, some extreme situations which are not easily predicted where the DP should stop the chat. For example, when an AI declares war on us. Upon thinking about it, I can't think of another good reason to define by law. Anything else can be planned for and if it wasn't then the appropriate leader should not be re-elected.
     
  3. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    The problem with allowing those at the chat (even leaders) to be able to force an end to the chat is that it opens the door wide for those at the chat to be able to force whatever they want, to the detriment of those who cannot be present at the chat.

    Have we ever elected a president or had a DP who would blindly continue on if a stack of doom suddenly and unexpectedly appeared out of no where? Get serious people. If the situation was truly unexpected and serious the DP would stop. For one thing, the DP wouldn't want to take all the blame for the bad position we'd be in! If it's not unexpected and serious, then what's the big flippiin' deal? Let the DP play or not play according to his or her judgement. Leave to door open of rthe citizens, through the forums, to call for special halts to game play sessions when they see fit.

    BTW, the Aztec war in term three was not unexpected. If those at the chat were caught by surprise, well, they should have been paying attention to the forums. As for my making a point about the law, well, I does now seem a rather useless point since even now we do not know what a legal instruction is!
     
  4. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    quoting DaveShack:
    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.

    Ironically? I believe you're mistaken here, DS. I don't think there is any irony in this situation. Just the facts. The "forum-goers" as well as the "chat-goers" voice is always heard with any action by the DP, or any elected official for that matter. The people elect the Prez, or VP, or Dom Leader to make decisions about the nation that need to be made. Therefore their voice is heard with an echoing redundency with every move. Plus, people who prefer a "forum game" to do not require it to be strictly that. We also enjoy turn chats and expect them to continue. Your statement appears to have too many holes in it to hold any water, which is debateable, I suppose.
     
  5. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    a chat prematurely stopped for any reason is a faliure. the system relies on that every responsible leader predicts all twists in the game. that's our legal instructions. very often leaders don't predict these twists, or even post instructions at all. then it's up to the DP to decide what to do.
    • if he cancel the chat, no progress is made and the game drags on forever. leaders get accustomed to this and stops planning ahead which means more stopped turn chats. = participation drops.
    • he can decide what to do by himself = no democracy = participation drops
    • he can ask the chatroom = leaves out the forum players and decreases focus on forums = participation drops
    • he can ask for the concerned official's personal, not in forum discussed opinion (if he's there) = no democracy = participation drops
    i know this don't really belong in this thread but since my proposal affects this problem i might as well bring up how.
    • if we had a circulating DP responsibility scheme, we could play 1, 2 or 3 turns each day (without turnchats), and thus greatly reduce this problem. (i am now assuming that our active members visit the forums every day to step in and place relevant comments. otherwise it would reduce democracy.) if the turn is played on a scheme everybody knew, all would have the chance to place a comment before the issue was handled the next day.
    • i know it's one thing to just say, and a completely different thing to actually do, but all officials are not perfect civ players and need more frames to work by (this is one reason i've not dared to run for office :mischief: ). it's a long and complicated process, but somehow we have to identify both very important and not-so-important issues that needs to be taken care of.

    if i'm just repeating someone else here, i apologize.
     
  6. Rik Meleet

    Rik Meleet Top predator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    11,977
    Location:
    Nijmegen Netherlands
    I'd like to stop a chat as rarely as possible. Only if something that is completely unexpected happens and requires a discussion/poll or elected official action.

    E.G. DG3; we are in war with Germany and Japan and Germany signs the Babs in an MA against us. Is this completely unexpected ? No. Does this require special attention from an elected official ? Perhaps. In my POV this is not a chat stopper; we could and should have anticipated MA's.

    E.G. DG3. Due to some war-declarations we've lost luxuries and with the razing of a Japanese city war-weariness immediatley jumps to 60% and there is no good way to counter it. Was this unexpected ? Yes and no; WW was expected, but not to this magnitude. Does it require special attention from an elected official ? Yes, absolutely. Domestic and trade are involved here. This is in my POV a chat stopper.

    E.G. We are in war with nation XXX. The war is going slightly well and we've gained some ground. Suddenly we are facing cavs / knights / units we didn't expect or against which we have no chance of fighting. This is somewhat unexpected and we need a vote whether to continue the war or not.
     
  7. FortyJ

    FortyJ Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    @D'yer Mak'er: What you're proposing is essentially a Succession Game. There's a forum for them elsewhere. ;)

    Excellent examples Rik, but I doubt we could codify them (and the many others for each possible situation) into law and still be able to start the game on Jan 1. ;)

    I still think we're making too much out of this and we could end up making such a rigid set of guidelines, that nobody is going to want to be DP (which will result in the all-important catch phrase - lower participation ;)). When I was president in DG2, there were a few instances when the "Take it to the Forums" cry came up. All I can say is that a responsible DP will know when the proper time is. It may not be right after a stack of units appears 2 tilese from the capitol. It could be after the DP has already made a number of lesser decisions and just "feels" that he's starting to make too many on his own and should stop the chat.

    My point is, that a responsible DP possesses an internal barometer of sorts that tells him/her that it's time to stop the chat. Now, if the rest of the citizenry feels that the DP's barometer isn't working right, then they should have the right to call for an investigation (or in my opinion, a vote of no-confidence ;)), which may or may not result in that official's removal from office.

    No matter how much time we waste writing up a list of reasons/ways to stop a turn chat, we're going to miss more than one. Let the elected leader play the game the best way he or she sees fit and let the people have the right to question that individual's method of play. Let's stop trying to turn the DP into a human version of the AI.
     
  8. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    The citizens have the right not to vote for that DP come the next election. Until you are all ready to give up on the idea of investigating or removing an official whose *barometer isn't working right* there will be dissention for every time a DP makes a judgement - reads his or her barometer - there's the chance someone will read differently - make a different judgement. you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "OK DP, you make the call on when the chat needs to be stopped, but just remember, if some of us disagree we reserve the right to PI you or call a vote of no confidence against you." Either leave it to the DP's judgement and live with that judgement or give the DP rules to follow.
     
  9. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    hmm, i disagree. i'm not very familiar with succession games, but AFAIK, a succession game is just a normal civ game played as a relay race. the game save is circulated among people but there are no political structures to guide the player.

    the idea behind this circulating DP responsibility is to divide the work among more people to be able to play a few turns each day instead of the current 2 TC a week system. if we circulated the DP among (the ideal number of?) 7 elected people, we would have one player for every day of the week.
     
  10. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    D'yer Mak'er's idea is intriguing. I've been thinking for awhile that we need to play x number of turns on a reular basis, come what may. The real world does not stop when something unexpected happens to us - it just keeps on turning and time marches on. It would be interesting if the demogame marched on as well. Two turns a day would be interesting to see. A regular fixed schedule would eliminate all these arguments about when to stop a session. It would also force us to do some actual planning ahead of time. We would not need full turn instructions posted everyday. With only a couple turns being played - and with a body of laws in place to guide the DP - it could be done.

    And D'yer Mak'er is also right that this would not be a succession game. In those whoever has the ball can generally run wherever he wants with it.
     
  11. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    I agree completely.
     
  12. FortyJ

    FortyJ Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    Is a PI such a bad thing?

    When I was president, I half expected to receive a handful of them (truth be told, I was kinda disappointed that I didn't get any ;)). I think any true leader should be prepared for the possibility of ruffling some feathers and having a few PIs brought up. Leading is not always the easiest thing to do, and sometimes you've got to make decisions that aren't popular. That's just part of the job. Besides, becoming the subject in a PI isn't the worst thing that can happen to any of us.

    A leader shouldn't be afraid of leading. Otherwise, he or she is just following.
     
  13. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Yes, I agree that leaders must ruffle feathers, but the ruffling should lead to something positive. PI's and votes of no confidence are not postitive things. I ruffled a great many feathers in term three and the core issues still have not been discussed to the point where there is understanding and consensus among the demogame players! I think the PI mentality is the reason for this. We still cannot have a reasonalbe and objective discussion about term three and the game is over! Those whose feathers were ruffled are of the opinion that I got away with something and the remedy is to make rules to prevent that from happening again. They still will not look at the core issues of forum versus chat power, what legal instructions are, etc. Trying to write a ruleset while ignoring these issues will only lead to a poor set of rules which in turn will lead to more dissention or the loss of more players.

    And, once again, no one should be PIed for bad judgement. So, have we narrowed down our choices yet?

    When to stop the chat?
    1) At the DP's discretion
    2) Whenever a leader at the chat says to
    3) Whenever a leader posts a legal instruction to do so
    4) Whenever anyone at the chat says to
    5) Whenever a majority of those at the chat say to
    6) Whenever a majority of leaders at the chat say to

    More options anyone? How about a multi-choice poll to start?
     
  14. FortyJ

    FortyJ Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    I disagree. A Public Investigation, in its purest form can serve to justify a DP's actions as much as it can condemn them. I see no reason why we should remove the right of the people to request an investigation of a DP's actions. If we are going to grant the DP some leeway in running the chat, then there must be some recourse if the DP gets out of line. Please note that I do not consider an honest error by the DP to be "out of line".

    Of course, these are my opinions and quite possibly not representative of the majority. However, I felt obligated to post them all the same. ;)
     
  15. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I agree, only #1 is a viable reason to stop the t/c.
     
  16. Rik Meleet

    Rik Meleet Top predator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    11,977
    Location:
    Nijmegen Netherlands
    When to stop the chat?
    1) At the DP's discretion
    Agreed.

    2) Whenever a leader at the chat says to
    No. Democracy is the will of the majority, or through them of the elected officials. The DP does have to consider the request, but the DP has the decision (see 1)

    3) Whenever a leader posts a legal instruction to do so
    Yes, but only when this instruction is discussed and polled on the forum and the vote is "yes".

    4) Whenever anyone at the chat says to
    No.

    5) Whenever a majority of those at the chat say to
    Well, yes.... but only if sufficient turns have been played. Let's say after the turn 5 upload. Or turn 10 upload.

    6) Whenever a majority of leaders at the chat say to
    No, leaders are for the ingame, not the outside game T/C. But see 2); the DP is forced to consider it.
     
  17. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    I have posted Forty's comments regarding this issue that appeared in another thread. I think it's worth a look.

    ------------------------

    Thank you donsig. This statement perfectly crystalized the whole debate for me on the issue of chat vs forum. Let me explain...

    First of all, the "chat-goers" are not mutually exclusive of the "forum-goers" and vice versa. The so-called "chat-goers" already possess all of the power (aka voice) of the "forum-goers" in that they too can post their opinions and participate in polls within the forums. By definition, the "forum-goers" are not in attendance at the chats, and therefore would not be priviledge to any decisions made exclusively at the chat.

    By adding any additional power to those in attendance at the chat, we are, in effect, creating an elite class of citizenry. This is very undemocratic.

    The only fair solution to this matter is to remove all decision-making authority from the chat attendees. The chats should be open to all citizens (as a democratic form of government should), but the citizens in attendance should have no voice in any decisions made at the chat. The DP should be allowed to poll the attendees, but that polling should be considered advisory in nature - not compulsory.

    There is no happy meeting ground where the "chat-goers" have equal voice with the "forum-goers" as long as we continue to grant those at the chat any authority to override the decisions of all citizens made in the forums.
     
  18. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    My proposals are not aimed at letting chat-goers override decisions made in the forum. They are aimed at filling the void where there are no forum decisions on a topic. Let's drill into this a little further.

    Assume that something comes up for which there are no instructions, and no clear majority in the forums -- in fact there may not even be any discusions. Is this a failure on the part of someone to adequately plan? Without question, something is messed up big-time if there is any in-game subject for which there are no instructions at all. This may not be anyone's fault, since a leader may be out for a day or two and that is all it takes to not get any discussion or polling started, the way we have work partitioned right now.

    Now let's look at different ways we can proceed from this condition.

    • DP's decision: One person makes a decision about what we should do, and play continues. This is democratic to the extent that the DP was elected to being with, but that's as far as it goes.
    • Leader instruction: One person, who happens to be the one the people chose to make this particular kind of decision, handles the situation. Again, only democratic because the leader was elected to the position.
    • Spot vote (non-binding), or suggestions tossed in from the crowd: In both cases, multiple voices are heard, so this is better than the DP or responsible leader deciding, but it is a limited number of voices. In any case, since it is non-binding, one person decides, so it is less democratic than any voting process.
    • Spot vote, binding: Multiple people decide, which is inherently more democratic than any single person deciding. This is less democratic than requiring a forum decision, because not all are available to participate.
    • Chat stops, return to forum. If people participate in the forum subsequent to the stoppage, maximizes democracy because everyone is allowed to participate in the decision making process.

    So, if maximum democracy and maximum participation are the desired result, does it not make sense that stopping the chat and asking what to do in the forum is the right thing to do? We're not in a race to see how few terms the game can be completed in. As President, I would probably stop the session myself (or not even start it) if there were issues that had not received proper discussion. I'd also probably start the discussion if the leader had not done so, stepped-on toes or not.
     
  19. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Try quoting entire ideas, please. ;) Let's revisit that:

    To restate this yet another way, if the people at the chat vote to stop the chat because conditions change, this can only help the people who are not at the chat. Why, you ask? Because if game play continues, neither the people at the chat nor the forum-goers who are not at the chat get a voice in how to proceed. If play is stopped, then all get a voice. Is there any logic to be offered on how it is better to proceed without getting input, than it is to stop and get updated input?
     
  20. FortyJ

    FortyJ Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    Historically, excessive stoppage of play has resulted in significant dropoff in participation. If you doubt this, there is an ongoing example of this principle in action in the MSDG forum.

    Once we accept this, we must agree that there are times when it is important to continue the chat despite a lack of instructions. Not to mention that stopping the chat for every instance in which there was no legal instruction provided from the forums would certainly result in the longest demogame ever recorded.

    Understanding the need to continue the chat despite a lack of instructions requires a method for resolving those issues so that the chat may continue. The best method to accomplish this is to let the DP handle it.

    A savvy DP would determine the most appropriate method for resolving an instructionless issue (whether it be through spot vote, or asking the appropriate leader - assuming he/she is present at the chat, etc...). Trying to codify the "appropriate" actions would require listing every possible contingency, which I doubt we could do.

    The real issue is not what to do about issues lacking instructions, but rather what to do about faulty instructions. For example, a production queue has incorrectly included an item that has already been built in that town, or if a queue can be improved through a slight rearrangement of items in the queue, or if a governor accidentally changed the queue resulting in a huge loss of shields, etc....
     

Share This Page