Citizen's Initiative - The Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD

[Hyronymus]

Donsig and I present to you, the good people of Yasutan, their combined effort to come up with a gameplay scheduling and session act.

Citizen's Initiative - The Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD

Section I - Gameplay Session Announcement
Gameplay sessions must be announced in the Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum section by the active Designated Player (known as DP hereafter). The announcement must be made at least 24 hours before the active DP plans to commence the gameplay and must contain the following information:

• Date and time of the planned gameplay in the subject as well as in the announcement
  • format of gameplay announcement's subject: GPIT - <starting save date> <gameplay session date + time> <time in GMT>
• A link to the previous gameplay session
• The name of the DP and allowed back-up DP's (if any) in the order they are allowed to play
• Type of the gameplay session (online/offline) and expected amount of turns to be played
• A link to the savegame that will be used as starting save

The announcement thread will subsequently be used as the official Gameplay Instructons Thread (known as GPIT hereafter).


Section II - Gameplay Session Instructions
Instructions must be posted in a single post in the relevant GPIT. Changes in the instruction(s) must be made in the original post and be marked. Instructions can be posted by:
1. All officeholders for the office they occupy
2. Any citizen for an instruction or set of instructions that was succesfully supported by a poll
If no instructions are posted at least 1 hour before the scheduled gameplay session starts, the DP is allowed to make decisions during the gameplay session. Changes to instructions are allowed up to 1 hour before the scheduled gameplay session is scheduled to start.


Section III - Playing The Savegame
For all types of gameplay sessions the DP must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another Offical or citizen may generally recreate their actions.

A gameplay session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to halt the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a gameplay session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions and the final savegame of the gameplay session in the GPIT within 24 hours after ending the gameplay session. For online sessions a chat log of the IRC channel must be provided too, although not necessarily by the DP.
During an online gameplay session the DP may ask advice from anyone attending the online gameplay session. The DP is not required to ask advice however and is also not required in any way to follow any advice given during the gameplay session. Any instructions given by Officials during a online gameplay session are not binding.


Section IV: Gameplay Session Obstruction
Gameplay session instructions under investigation by the Yasutan Supreme Court automatically adjourn the scheduled gameplay session if the objection(s) to the instructions are found to have merit. In order for an adjourment to occur within 24 hours of a scheduled session start the judiciary must be unanimous in finding the objection(s) to instructions to have merit.
After the ruling if there is less than 24 hours to the scheduled session, and regardless of the outcome of the judicial ruling, the original session is cancelled. The DP must reannounce, in a new GPIT, a new gameplay session date + time at least 24 hours before the gameplay session is to be held. The new gameplay session date may not be any sooner than 24 hours after the court ruling though.
After the ruling if there is at least 24 hours to the scheduled session, and regardless of the outcome of the judicial ruling, the original GPIT is still valid and the session can proceed as scheduled assuming no other objections are found to have merit by the judiciary.

In all cases of adjourment, instructions that are declared illegal by the Yasutan Supreme Court must be revised and posted in the proper GPIT. Any member of the judiciary is authorized to post the revised instructions though they may also be posted by the appropriate official.


Jurispudence
This Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD supercedes the current Gameplay session scheduling initiative.


Changes in version 3:

• Changed Section IV entirely to reflect a workable solution on dealing with adjournment of gameplay sessions:
  
  "Section IV: Gameplay Session Obstruction
  Gameplay session instructions under investigation by the Yasutan Supreme Court automatically adjourn the scheduled gameplay session if the objection(s) to the instructions are found to have merit. In order for an adjourment to occur within 24 hours of a scheduled session start the judiciary must be unanimous in finding the objection(s) to instructions to have merit.
  After the ruling if there is less than 24 hours to the scheduled session, and regardless of the outcome of the judicial ruling, the original session is cancelled. The DP must reannounce, in a new GPIT, a new gameplay session date + time at least 24 hours before the gameplay session is to be held. The new gameplay session date may not be any sooner than 24 hours after the court ruling though.
  After the ruling if there is at least 24 hours to the scheduled session, and regardless of the outcome of the judicial ruling, the original GPIT is still valid and the session can proceed as scheduled assuming no other objections are found to have merit by the judiciary.
  
  In all cases of adjourment, instructions that are declared illegal by the Yasutan Supreme Court must be revised and posted in the proper GPIT. Any member of the judiciary is authorized to post the revised instructions though they may also be posted by the appropriate official."​

Changes in version 2:

• Included the need for a single, editable post for instructions:
  "Instructions must be posted in a single post in the relevant GPIT. Changes in the instruction(s) must be made in the original post and be marked. Instructions can be posted by:"
  ​
• Changed the timeframe from 48 hours to 24 hours for the time between a Supreme court ruling and choosing a new gameplay date:
  "The new gameplay session date may not be any sooner than 24 hours after the court ruling though."
  ​
• Changed time format for GPIT to express time in GMT:
  "format of gameplay announcement's subject: GPIT - <starting save date> <gameplay session date + time> <time in GMT>"
  ​
• Included the requirement for objections against gameplay session instructions to have merit in order to ajourn a gameplay session:
  "Gameplay session instructions under investigation by the Yasutan Supreme Court automatically ajourn the scheduled gameplay session if the objection(s) to the instructions are found to have merit."
  ​

 

[Provolution]

Where can I sign on this one ?

 

[donsig]

I do support this initiative and am therefore withdrawing the Revised Gameplay Scheduling Initiative.

 

[Provolution]

You more or less replaced the revised with the devised one.

 

[DaveShack]

Section IV: Gameplay Session Obstruction
The new gameplay session date may not be any sooner than 48 hours after the court ruling though.

This kind of delay will get an automatic no vote from me, regardless of the benefits of the rest of the proposal.

 

[Methos]

Donsig suggested to create a dedicated announcement topic for gameplay sessions. Such topic (called Gameplay Session Announcements Topic (GSAT) or something similar) would contain all Gameplay Session announcements.

We already have that, it's called the DP Pool. Why create something we already have and have been using?

One thing I would like to add is that only a single post can be used for instructions in the TCIT. If an official wishes to change their instructions, they need to edit that post. It gets confusing when an official posts his/her instructions in multiple posts. Also make it so that only officials may post in the TCIT prior to the session starting. Once it has started, than the thread is open to all.

This kind of delay will get an automatic no vote from me, regardless of the benefits of the rest of the proposal.

I can understand the need for a delay, but agree that 48 hours is a bit much. What about 24 hours? Afterall, that is what is required for a typical announcement anyway.

 

[Hyronymus]

That is a wise suggestions, Methos and we'll certainly include it in the version that we'll send out to poll. I think donsig and I can live with 24 hours too but I wait for donsig to confirm this.

 

[DaveShack]

How about a reannounce is only needed if the court ruling changes something, or if the original time has passed? I'd hate to have a court rule "no merit" on a question about the session but have that result in a delay until the DP's next available date, especially with some DP's who can play exactly one day per week.

Necessary delays are ok. Unnecessary delays are a problem.

 

[Provolution]

We should also have a runner-up option/chain of command option, in case a DP for several reasons cannot handle the session per schedule. We need to have that security vent for the citizens, as the DP institute is for the citizens, not the other way around.

 

[Hyronymus]

We should also have a runner-up option/chain of command option, in case a DP for several reasons cannot handle the session per schedule. We need to have that security vent for the citizens, as the DP institute is for the citizens, not the other way around.

All part of this proposal, read Section I.

 

[Provolution]

Good call, the back-up method removes what I call the Demogame Beckham Syndrome, where singular DPs think themselves irreplaceable and non-expendable, even at the expense of the demogame processing. The last thing I want the DP Institute to be, is a trade union of buddies protecting their right to play at any cost. If they cannot play at a given date and time, the chain of command should kick in and the ten turns played. If Real Life, Internet goes down, power outage, nuclear war or just having a bad day happens, that DP was not meant to be, and someone should take over, out of respect to the others sharing the demogame.

 

[dutchfire]

<timezone difference from GMT>

Wouldn't it be easier to post the time in GMT instead of the timezone difference? Or at least allow the DP to post the time in GMT instead of the timezone difference?

 

[Hyronymus]

Hmm, that slipped the pruning proces actually, dutchfire. I intended to change it to GMT +/- # of hours but your proposal is actully much better.

 

[donsig]

This kind of delay will get an automatic no vote from me, regardless of the benefits of the rest of the proposal.

I told Hyronymus you wouldn't accept that. I'm open to making changes here. All I'm concerned to do is make sure we all get a 24 hour notice of when the save is scheduled to be played. If that can be done at the time the adjournment (or stay) is put in place, that's fine. What it comes down to is Hyronymus and I were not sure how to tackle this so we tossed something out hoping we'd get duscussion leading to a good revision.

So, DaveShack, do you have any suggestions? I think we need something about this in here - it was a big part of the type of controversy this initiative is designed to avoid. (OK, I read further.)

How about a reannounce is only needed if the court ruling changes something, or if the original time has passed? I'd hate to have a court rule "no merit" on a question about the session but have that result in a delay until the DP's next available date, especially with some DP's who can play exactly one day per week.

Necessary delays are ok. Unnecessary delays are a problem.

A no merit ruling would not result in a delay because the clause only kicks in if the judiciary is investigating. I can see how that is a poor choice of words. We should change that to investigating a case that has been found to have merit or something similar.

Waiting for a DP who can only play one day per week is not a necessary delay when we have a whole pool of DPs.

We need a mechanism that allows us all to know how a stay affects the scheduling of the session. This is the crux of the controversy last term. If we structure it so the reannouncement happens only if there is a change made then sometimes we'll get proper notice and sometimes we won't (depending on how the case is ruled). That's not acceptable. Also, given that instructions can be posted up to one hour before scheduled start, we could get a stay any time up to one hour before start - or even later since a last minute order could result in a stay which would take time for the judiciary to post. So, in reality a stay can come anytime before the start. And who knows how long a stay could last?

Since we're aiming for a 24 hour advance notice of the scheduled start, why don't we make re-announcements (with their 24 hour notice) mandatory anytime a stay is in place within the 24 hour period before the original scheduled start? In other words, if there is a stay and it gets lifted while there is still 24 hours or more before the scheduled start, then the original announcement holds. If we get to 24 hours before the scheduled start and there is still a stay in place then we need a new announcemment and a new date. This is clear cut and objective. It also gives us all an incentive to avoid stays once we reach the 24 mark.

We already have that, it's called the DP Pool. Why create something we already have and have been using?

The DP Pool thread is a work thread with lots of other stuff in it. The purpose of having a dedicated (non-discussion thread) is so people can subscribe to that thread and be alerted whenever a new session is scheduled (and only when a new session is scheduled).

One thing I would like to add is that only a single post can be used for instructions in the TCIT. If an official wishes to change their instructions, they need to edit that post. It gets confusing when an official posts his/her instructions in multiple posts. Also make it so that only officials may post in the TCIT prior to the session starting. Once it has started, than the thread is open to all.

The trouble with limiting the GPIT to only officials is the fact that any citizen can post an instruction based on a completed poll. These instructions, like those from officials must be in by one hour before the scheduled start.

As for limiting officials to one post, that should not be a law. Personally, I'd prefer different types of orders in different posts. I thought we had agreed that it was best if individual DPs provided guidelines for how they wanted instructions posted. We cannot legislate the format of orders and still leave DPs this flexibility.

 

[grant2004]

Since we're aiming for a 24 hour advance notice of the scheduled start, why don't we make re-announcements (with their 24 hour notice) mandatory anytime a stay is in place within the 24 hour period before the original scheduled start?

That sounds like a reasonable change to me, I could definitely support that, overall I think this is an excellent law and I'm sure with the few changes discussed it will have my vote.

 

[Provolution]

I am ready to vote for this. Now we can begin with the "Official Discussion and Poll Option Amendment"

 

[DaveShack]

Since we're aiming for a 24 hour advance notice of the scheduled start, why don't we make re-announcements (with their 24 hour notice) mandatory anytime a stay is in place within the 24 hour period before the original scheduled start? In other words, if there is a stay and it gets lifted while there is still 24 hours or more before the scheduled start, then the original announcement holds. If we get to 24 hours before the scheduled start and there is still a stay in place then we need a new announcemment and a new date. This is clear cut and objective. It also gives us all an incentive to avoid stays once we reach the 24 mark.

Almost there. There could be a stay in place for a questionable item which merits investigation, but the result of that investigation might result in no action. If the delay only tripped as the result of an investigation actually changing something within the 24 hours, or not being resolved by an hour before the session was scheduled to start, it would be much better. If everyone acts as though the instructions are assumed to be good, then all instructions will be in and there is no reason for the session not to continue.

 

[Provolution]

I think if there are minor irregularities, we can leave that to the DP, not the Judiciary to sort out. I rather give the DP some slack, than to give the Judiciary a lot of unneeded work.

 

[donsig]

Almost there. There could be a stay in place for a questionable item which merits investigation, but the result of that investigation might result in no action. If the delay only tripped as the result of an investigation actually changing something within the 24 hours, or not being resolved by an hour before the session was scheduled to start, it would be much better. If everyone acts as though the instructions are assumed to be good, then all instructions will be in and there is no reason for the session not to continue.

Provolution is right. If we work with the DP then in most cases there will no no stay. If a citizen requests an investigation which the judiciary finds has merit and this results in a stay within the 24 hour period before the scheduled start of the session then we should treat this as a serious situation and assume the session will be delayed. This is preferable to rushing the judicary towards a judgement isn't it?

I for one find it difficult to believe that we could get a stay placed by the judiciary on something that can obviously result quickly in no changes. If the result was so obvious there would be no stay in the first place.

As I said earlier, we'd all be aware of this very sensitive 24 hour period and if we all really want the game to proceed without undo delays we will work together to find ways to solve problems without stays and delays. We could do that by compromising which is a give and take. We could even start that sort of thing now by accepting that a stay within that 24 hour period automatically requires a reannouncement. If you all compare this proposal with the one I proposed you will see that I've given up much already. Hyronymus has also altered his proposal. It is now time for others to let up on some of their demands so we can bring this initiative to a vote.

Hyronymus, would you be so kind as to give us the current proposal again with the changes already agreed upon? It would be good to have a fresh look at it.

 

[DaveShack]

My contribution to the compromise is allowing there to be a stay at all.

If I could trust it to not be used, then it wouldn't be an issue.