I don't think there is any serious danger of one person holding things up indefinitely with multiple stays.
Citizen's Initiative: DP use of incomplete poll results
- Thread starter grant2004
- Start date
Not indefinitely, but for a long enough time to cause lots of damage
A little damage maybe. If the request is justifiable then it's arguable that it's not likely to be damaging. If the request is not justifiable, then ...
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
And who decides is justifiable?
Effectively a DP can schedule a session at any time - he only has to give at least 24 hours notice - so delaying an announced session would never be a problem.
The reason I included a formal stay by the DP is: while the DP can delay any session for whatever reasons (usually RL events...) he is basically free to play whenever he likes. With a formal stay he'd be forced to say when the session is to be played.
Now for distinguishing a and c: While I do think that a member of the Judiciary should be able to enforce a stay I don't think an unlimited stay is justified unless a majority of the court is for this. The same is basically true for a citizen imposed stay - 2 days will be enough for any initiative to pass mainly because the polling initiative which I would strongly recommend to pass in one version or another will probably state that 2 days is the minimum length of a poll.
As for citizens: I don't mind allowing them to stay a session once every session but I don't believe in allowing a couple of people to hold a session for ever.
As for the Judiciary lifting a stay: I strongly feel that with the role the Judiciary has to play to uphold the rights of all citizens there should be a way for them to lift a stay - if people don't like that clause we can of course kill it. But for this updated version I'll still include it:
I kept the DP thing in there just so that people can tell me again that it is unnecessary. If you still think that we should not make a distinction between one member of the Judiciary and the full Judiciary - I'd be for deleting the one member clause completely. Note that the version I posted above has one flaw: a stay issued by one member of the Judiciary can never be lifted (luckily its time limited
) This might need to be refined but I'd just ask your opinion anyway so go ahead 
The reason I included a formal stay by the DP is: while the DP can delay any session for whatever reasons (usually RL events...) he is basically free to play whenever he likes. With a formal stay he'd be forced to say when the session is to be played.
Now for distinguishing a and c: While I do think that a member of the Judiciary should be able to enforce a stay I don't think an unlimited stay is justified unless a majority of the court is for this. The same is basically true for a citizen imposed stay - 2 days will be enough for any initiative to pass mainly because the polling initiative which I would strongly recommend to pass in one version or another will probably state that 2 days is the minimum length of a poll.
As for citizens: I don't mind allowing them to stay a session once every session but I don't believe in allowing a couple of people to hold a session for ever.
As for the Judiciary lifting a stay: I strongly feel that with the role the Judiciary has to play to uphold the rights of all citizens there should be a way for them to lift a stay - if people don't like that clause we can of course kill it. But for this updated version I'll still include it:
Code:
V2
A Demogame session may be stayed
a) by the Judiciary
b) by the DP for the affected Demogame session
c) by one member of the Judiciary or four citizens
Any stay has to be posted in the thread for the Demogame session affected.
If a citizen wants to issue a stay he has to create a thread in the Demogame Citizens Subforum - if at least three other citizens support the stay any of those may post a stay order in the Demogame session thread affected.
This post has to include the reasons for the stay and the time this stay expires.
A stay issued under a) and b) may be extended for unlimited times and is not time limited.
A stay issued under c) may last for no more than 3 days and the same citizens may only issue such a stay once every Demogame session.
By unanimous decision the Judiciary can vote to lift any stay in place at any time.
Unless the Judiciary decides otherwise, the stay is lifted 24 hours after such a vote is made.
Lifting of a stay including the time it takes effect has to be posted in the thread for the Demogame session affected.
Changes in V2:
-"turnchat" rephrased to "Demogame session"
-Options c and d combined
-added rule on how citizens can post a stay
-increased number of citizens needed to post a stay, increased time such a stay can last
-require unanimous decision for lifting a stayI kept the DP thing in there just so that people can tell me again that it is unnecessary. If you still think that we should not make a distinction between one member of the Judiciary and the full Judiciary - I'd be for deleting the one member clause completely. Note that the version I posted above has one flaw: a stay issued by one member of the Judiciary can never be lifted (luckily its time limited
) This might need to be refined but I'd just ask your opinion anyway so go ahead Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
If some of the people could give the same clarity and effort to the game itself, as they provide to rules and rights, we would all be better off.
Actually we're in pretty good shape there. Right now there isn't much more to say until after tomorrow's session.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Overall, people research the moves better now, that is me included, balancing internal politics with optimizing limited forces.
I see no reason not to call it a turn chat, since the DP's TCIT stand's for turn chat instruction thread. That should also be clear enough for anyone who's reading the law to know what they are referring to when saying turn chat.
Hehe, after reading all the above, calling it a turn chat is what stuck most in my mind.
Hehe, after reading all the above, calling it a turn chat is what stuck most in my mind.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Then change TCIT to GPIT. I will not vote for any rule that institutionalizes the chats. Period.
I also do not think we are in danger of one person holding up the game with multiple stays. I am still agianst limiting stays - let the threat of unlimited stays remain so we all have a reason to deal fairly with each other.
We've had that 24 notice ever since the first Civ III DG. How that requirement fits into the stay rules should also be addressed.
You know, I think I'll go back and see if we got a 24 hour notice of play before the longbow game play session. There may be some judicial action after all.
I also do not think we are in danger of one person holding up the game with multiple stays. I am still agianst limiting stays - let the threat of unlimited stays remain so we all have a reason to deal fairly with each other.
We've had that 24 notice ever since the first Civ III DG. How that requirement fits into the stay rules should also be addressed.
You know, I think I'll go back and see if we got a 24 hour notice of play before the longbow game play session. There may be some judicial action after all.Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Why not post relevant suggestions in a more packaged suit, and then let us poll over it. I see an extended discussion here, with no real direction.
The 24 hours were actually introduced into this game by the Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative you posted. Now this might be interesting to discuss what "scheduled" means and if that is merely a delay of the session which you didn't want to complain about, or if this should have been rescheduled - I honestly don't know which way I would decide, that would be tricky to resolve I feel...
