Citizens initiative: The Turnchat Session Act of 1585 AD

[Hyronymus]

The Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC amendment initiative has died prematurely in my opinion. It never got polled either. With the current heated discussion in the Revised Gameplay Session Initiative I decided to the most evil thing. I hijack v3 of the Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC to propose a competing and hopefully more sensible alternative for the Revised Gameplay Session Initiative ánd the Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC amendment.


Citizen's Initiative - The Turnchat Session Act of 1585 AD

Section I - Turnchat session announcement
Turnchat 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 turnchat and must contain the following information:

• Date and time of the planned turnchat in the subject as well as in the announcement
  • format of turnchat announcement's subject: TCIT - <starting save date> <turnchat session date + time> <timezone difference from GMT>

• A link to the previous turnchat session
• Type of the turnchat session (online, offline or special)
• A link to the savegame that will be used as starting save
• Links to finished and legal polls and their outcome
• An instruction checklist^*
  • Chieftain: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Warlord: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Head Scientist: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Governors: No instructions posted/Instructions posted

^*this checklist is subject to changes in the amount of Officials

There is no need for the turnchat session announcement to mention the DP's name since only the active DP may post such announcement.

Section II - Turnchat session instructions

Sub a: Instructions must be posted in the relevant turnchat session announcement thread. Only Officials elected for the current term are allowed to post instructions. Instructions must be posted at least 1 hour before the turnchat session is planned. Changes to instructions are allowed up to 1 hour before the turnchat is planned too as long as they are marked red and bold.

Sub b: Officials that do not post turnchat session instructions or post their turnchat session instructions too late give the DP complete control over their area for the turnchat session, even if they attend the turnchat session (only relevant for online sessions).


Section III - Playing the savegame

Sub a: For all types of turnchat sessions the DP must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another Offical or citizen may generally recreate their actions.

Sub b: A turnchat 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 turnchat session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions and the final savegame of the turnchat session in the announcement thread within 24 hours after ending the turnchat session. For online sessions, special or normal, a chat log of the IRC channel must be provided too, although not necessarily by the DP.

Sub c: Citizens attending an online turnchat session are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so however and is not required in any way to follow any such advice either.


Section IV: Obstruction of a turnchat session

Sub a: If the turnchat session instructions are being investigated by the Yasutan Supreme Court, the turnchat session is ajourned until the Yasutan Supreme Court has ruled. The active DP is free to commence the turnchat session at any time given after the ruling provided no single instruction was declared illegal. If one or more instructions were declared illegal by the Yasutan Supreme Court the turnchat may not be continued until new instructions have been given. Exceptions are when the responsible Official has been removed from Office or when the responsible Official indicates that no new instructions will be given for the turnchat session.

Sub b: If the active DP for an online turnchat session does not show up within 1 hour after the planned turnchat session, or is unable to continue, a substitute DP can be chosen from the Officials present at the online Turnchat session. The substitute DP must follow the instructions given for the turnchat.


Section V: Applicable laws

Constitution Article E - Playing the Save

1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.
   • If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.
2. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 1.a of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.
3. Inadvertent discovery of information shall not result in any penalty, provided no attempt is made to further disseminate the information or use it to advantage within the game.
4. Use of any exploits is prohibited. No person may manipulate the game in any way other than by normal play mechanisms, unless expressly permitted by law.
5. Lower forms of law are free to (and expected to) further define what actions are allowed and disallowed by this rule.

 

[donsig]

I will NEVER EVER vote for any initiative that institutionalizes a turn chat.

May I also be so bold as to ask why you put this forward when I've already put forward a revised game play scheduling initiative? Would it not be better to deal with these issues in one initiative?

 

[Provolution]

I am not certain about all this. Is this the "demogame equivalent of Moses with the stone tablets with the 10 commandments"? I feel stupefied here. It is a mighty avatar I must admit, and I bow humbly to it.

And "hijacking", is not that an "evil-doer term", to follow the gist of Americana?

I am not to support a turnchat initiative. I vividly recall you forgot your own turnchat by the end of term IV, where Dutchfire stepped in to fill your place.

This is about balancing expectations and delivery. If you cannot deliver something, you don't promise it. This means that when you post something in the TCIT thread about schedule, you better fulfill it. I am probably not the one to talk about turnchats, being the sole candidate not becoming DP, but I will try, even though I do not belong to the fanboys club.

Being a DP is not a right, but a privilege you acquire by being able to deliver a service to the majority of people at a specified point of time. The time-stamp here is the most critical part, as that is the only neutral piece of information binding our organization together. When people begin to disrespect the notion of time, even worse, other peoples time, we get a very weak and inferior system. This is of course good for those DPs that want their own imperfections to go under the radar, but bad for those players that are meticulously scrutinized and picked apart in threads for the slightest perceived transgression and violation of same perceived rights.

But I got some feedback.

The language should be less bureaucratic and more straightforward, this is a game, not a legal system in Brussels.

There needs to be a link to the formating of options, a link to the interpretation of polls and a link to the observance of instructions.

Change turnchat word to game-session.

we need a chain of command clause.

I hope this was constructive, I leave the modesty to others.

 

[Hyronymus]

May I also be so bold as to ask why you put this forward when I've already put forward a revised game play scheduling initiative? Would it not be better to deal with these issues in one initiative?

You replied to one comment that people just should vote No if they don't agree. If you take the feedback you get serious I will reconsider it.

I am not to support a turnchat initiative. I vividly recall you forgot your own turnchat by the end of term IV, where Dutchfire stepped in to fill your place.

And this turnchat act underwrites what Dutchfire did.

If you cannot deliver something, you don't promise it. This means that when you post something in the TCIT thread about schedule, you better fulfill it.

In a perfect world where no such thing as real life exists, surely. But we live in an imperfect world. But still, it won't hurt to "regulate" things.

The language should be less bureaucratic and more straightforward, this is a game, not a legal system in Brussels.

I'll change it whenever I get more feedback, I copied some "bureaucratic wording" from another demogame rule.

There needs to be a link to the formating of options, a link to the interpretation of polls and a link to the observance of instructions.

There is none yet, the Polling Act is still being debated.

Change turnchat word to game-session.

Why? I don't change things just because people tell me to do it, show me your reasoning .

we need a chain of command clause.

You mean like who's responsible in the end?

 

[donsig]

You replied to one comment that people just should vote No if they don't agree. If you take the feedback you get serious I will reconsider it.

Give me some serious feedback and I'll take it seriously.

You haven't answered my question either so I'll restate it. Why are you offering this initiative when I've already put one forward?

 

[Provolution]

And this turnchat act underwrites what Dutchfire did.

You mean, illegalizes it or supports it. This is a chain of command instrument.

In a perfect world where no such thing as real life exists, surely. But we live in an imperfect world. But still, it won't hurt to "regulate" things.

Curious how you request flexibility for your "imperfect world", whereas you squash us for the slightest transgression in the threads. If you ask for mercy, better give some. All of us got real lifes, but some of us can deliver on time, because that is how we organize our lives. And yes, we need to regulate things, so we don't get a core group trading favors and getting cozy with each other at the expense of neutral and transparent rules everyone abides by.

I'll change it whenever I get more feedback, I copied some "bureaucratic wording" from another demogame rule.

Well, you are making a sell here, so respect the "citizen input". If we do not understand it, it has to be rewritten. If it is not to be handled, it has to be changed.

There is none yet, the Polling Act is still being debated.

Of course it will, and it will most likely be no consensus, the rift is quite deep now. This will be fought out in polls, until one side opens to the other.
Since this has been a one-way street so far, it is not very likely.

Why? I don't change things just because people tell me to do it, show me your reasoning .

Well, I am not the one preaching modesty, but you are of course allowed to be proud, as long as you don't ask others to be modest for your advantage.
I can show some reasoning when some of this proposal has melted away.

You mean like who's responsible in the end?

Yes, a de facto replacement.

 

[Hyronymus]

You mean, illegalizes it or supports it. This is a chain of command instrument.

If I understand you correctly you do want a chain of command covered but not as part of this Act, right? I'm perfectly happy with taking it out of this Act as soon as someone comes up with such chain of command. I'll keep my reservations on a chain of command for when that happens.

Curious how you request flexibility for your "imperfect world", whereas you squash us for the slightest transgression in the threads.

What I squash people with is their unsupported (by facts) or unattainable comment on things.

If you ask for mercy, better give some.

All right, I'll let you get away with it .

All of us got real lifes, but some of us can deliver on time, because that is how we organize our lives. And yes, we need to regulate things, so we don't get a core group trading favors and getting cozy with each other at the expense of neutral and transparent rules everyone abides by.

That's what I consider an unattainable comment. I can think of a dozen situations in which Mr. Organised cannot make it to an appointment.

Well, you are making a sell here, so respect the "citizen input". If we do not understand it, it has to be rewritten. If it is not to be handled, it has to be changed.

As I said, I will.

Of course it will, and it will most likely be no consensus, the rift is quite deep now. This will be fought out in polls, until one side opens to the other.

I'll meet you in the middle and add a link to the discussion topic.

Well, I am not the one preaching modesty, but you are of course allowed to be proud, as long as you don't ask others to be modest for your advantage.
I can show some reasoning when some of this proposal has melted away.

My advantage ?

 

[Falcon02]

I will NEVER EVER vote for any initiative that institutionalizes a turn chat.

I agree...

However skimming though it (have not had the chance to read it straight though yet), it appears this does not actually institutionalize a turnchat...

However it uses bad terminology, as "turnchat" does imply online session.
Even I had a bad habit of using "turnchat" for both online and offline sessions, it was the term I knew from the original demogames before my long absence. I had a hard time getting rid of it, and instead of using "game session."

The Terminology definately needs to be corrected.

 

[Methos]

IMO I find it unsettling that a second initiative would be brought up when one is currently already being discussed. Now, instead of being able to focus our attention, we are distracted and this ends up starting a split in the DG. We're already seeing trouble brewing with the avatar change currently arising.

Anyway you would mind putting this one on the back burner and trying to work with Donsig? Same goes for you Donsig, any chance of working with other citizens desires?

 

[donsig]

Anyway you would mind putting this one on the back burner and trying to work with Donsig? Same goes for you Donsig, any chance of working with other citizens desires?

I'll work with anyone who has a longbow avatar.

I'm trying. But as I said in the thread that contains my proposal there are some things I won't put in my proposal because I simply do not agree with them. One of those is giving the DP 12 to start playing after his scheduled time. That is way too long. The most recent post I made in that thread asked DaveShack what he considers reasonable for a start window. He had previously stated he wouldn't accept less than 12 hours. If he sticks with that then he and I will never agree. I put forward two hours as a start window and 12 hours is so far the only counter proposal I've seen. I admit I haven't been through the whoe thread. My attention has been here, in the DP pool thread, in the judiciary thread and in the illegal info initiative DaveShack has proposed. I'm also active in the Conquests MTDG. Oh and then there's RL which includes two jobs, two ex-wives, several kids, step-kids and grandchildren. I'm doing what I can but it seems no one wants to take my proposal seriously - which doesn't really surprise me since most everyone stood by and watched the judiciary gut the original game play scheduling initiative.

I am not withdrawing my proposal. I wrote the original initiative, I brought the investigation against Joe Harker when it was violated and I proposed my revised initiative first. I'm quite willing to modify parts of it to a point. I will put it to a vote. It seems to me the proper thing to do would be for this initiative to be set aside so we can concentrate on mine. We discuss it, modify it and vote on it. If it passes we're done. If it fails we come over here, discuss this one, modify it and vote on it.

 

[Provolution]

Agree with Donsig here.

 

[DaveShack]

The announcement must be made at least 24 hours before the active DP plans to commence the turnchat and must contain the following information:

• Date and time of the planned turnchat in the subject as well as in the announcement
  • format of turnchat announcement's subject: TCIT - <starting save date> <turnchat session date + time> <timezone difference from GMT>

• A link to the previous turnchat session
• Type of the turnchat session (online, offline or special)
• A link to the savegame that will be used as starting save
• Links to finished and legal polls and their outcome
• An instruction checklist^*
  • Chieftain: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Warlord: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Head Scientist: No instructions posted/Instructions posted
  • Governors: No instructions posted/Instructions posted

^*this checklist is subject to changes in the amount of Officials

• The instruction checklist has never been especially useful.
• The in-game date is something I usually don't know and don't have access to when I create my session threads. It doesn't add value, and my preference is to leave out things which don't have a purpose.
• Links to polls are a nice idea, but likely to get out of sync with reality. I'd rather place the burden on officials and citizens posting instructions related to their polls.

Section II - Turnchat session instructions

Sub a: Instructions must be posted in the relevant turnchat session announcement thread. Only Officials elected for the current term are allowed to post instructions. Instructions must be posted at least 1 hour before the turnchat session is planned. Changes to instructions are allowed up to 1 hour before the turnchat is planned too as long as they are marked red and bold.

If you meant changes are allowed after the 1 hour if they are marked, then this kinda makes sense, but if both original and change are before 1 hour then the marking of changes is unnecessary, and distracting to the DP.

Sub b: Officials that do not post turnchat session instructions or post their turnchat session instructions too late give the DP complete control over their area for the turnchat session, even if they attend the turnchat session (only relevant for online sessions).

This is already covered, it doesn't need to be covered again.

Section III - Playing the savegame

Sub a: For all types of turnchat sessions the DP must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another Offical or citizen may generally recreate their actions.

Sub b: A turnchat 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 turnchat session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions and the final savegame of the turnchat session in the announcement thread within 24 hours after ending the turnchat session. For online sessions, special or normal, a chat log of the IRC channel must be provided too, although not necessarily by the DP.

Sub c: Citizens attending an online turnchat session are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so however and is not required in any way to follow any such advice either.

This is already covered.

Section IV: Obstruction of a turnchat session

Sub a: If the turnchat session instructions are being investigated by the Yasutan Supreme Court, the turnchat session is ajourned until the Yasutan Supreme Court has ruled. The active DP is free to commence the turnchat session at any time given after the ruling provided no single instruction was declared illegal. If one or more instructions were declared illegal by the Yasutan Supreme Court the turnchat may not be continued until new instructions have been given. Exceptions are when the responsible Official has been removed from Office or when the responsible Official indicates that no new instructions will be given for the turnchat session.

This is starting in the right direction. Some potential modifications for the "without new instructions" case:

• If the obstruction (stay) is lifted before the original scheduled time for the session, then the original scheduled time remains in effect.
• When a stay is in effect, the DP could post a sequence of potential session start times. When the stay is lifted, the scheduled time for the play session becomes the next time from the DP's sequence of potential session start times, unless less than (n) hours remains. [I suggest 6 for n here] If less than n hours remains, then the following potential session time is the new scheduled time.

Sub b: If the active DP for an online turnchat session does not show up within 1 hour after the planned turnchat session, or is unable to continue, a substitute DP can be chosen from the Officials present at the online Turnchat session. The substitute DP must follow the instructions given for the turnchat.

This type of provision has fallen out of use. It could get sticky if the only official present was one who was rejected for DP.

I see almost as many problems as the other proposal. If the section on "obstruction" could be moved into the other proposal, then maybe we could eliminate or tone down the time limits in that one and address the real problem.

 

[Nobody]

whats wrong with the current system?

 

[Hyronymus]

However it uses bad terminology, as "turnchat" does imply online session.
Even I had a bad habit of using "turnchat" for both online and offline sessions, it was the term I knew from the original demogames before my long absence. I had a hard time getting rid of it, and instead of using "game session."

The Terminology definately needs to be corrected.

Aha, that's the beef. I didn't realise the difference until you mentioned it. I'll correct it in v2.

I'm quite willing to modify parts of it to a point. I will put it to a vote.

Please hold on to that thought and don't snarl at people as soon as they propose something you didn't have in mind.

• The instruction checklist has never been especially useful.
• The in-game date is something I usually don't know and don't have access to when I create my session threads. It doesn't add value, and my preference is to leave out things which don't have a purpose.
• Links to polls are a nice idea, but likely to get out of sync with reality. I'd rather place the burden on officials and citizens posting instructions related to their polls.

Fine with me but I cannot say the latter has been a habit of DP players, including myself. You may have to stress it.

If you meant changes are allowed after the 1 hour if they are marked, then this kinda makes sense, but if both original and change are before 1 hour then the marking of changes is unnecessary, and distracting to the DP.

What I mean is that Officials can edit their instructions as often as the like (which I don't recommend) up to 1 hour before the game session starts.

This is already covered, it doesn't need to be covered again.

It's not in the Constitution as far as I'm aware, what other Act is out there that covers it then?

This is already covered.

Same as above .

This is starting in the right direction. Some potential modifications for the "without new instructions" case:

• If the obstruction (stay) is lifted before the original scheduled time for the session, then the original scheduled time remains in effect.
• When a stay is in effect, the DP could post a sequence of potential session start times. When the stay is lifted, the scheduled time for the play session becomes the next time from the DP's sequence of potential session start times, unless less than (n) hours remains. [I suggest 6 for n here] If less than n hours remains, then the following potential session time is the new scheduled time.

That sounds like a very good approach to me.

This type of provision has fallen out of use. It could get sticky if the only official present was one who was rejected for DP.

Same goes for a chain of command solution imo, but I do think this requires regulation.

I see almost as many problems as the other proposal. If the section on "obstruction" could be moved into the other proposal, then maybe we could eliminate or tone down the time limits in that one and address the real problem.

Given donsig's renewed leniancy towards comment I'm looking forward to your suggestion for new game session times after a stay in his proposal.

 

[Methos]

whats wrong with the current system?

During the trial many of our citizens were unsure how to interpret the law, as can be easily seen by a 10-10 vote by the jurors.

 

[DaveShack]

whats wrong with the current system?

During the trial many of our citizens were unsure how to interpret the law, as can be easily seen by a 10-10 vote by the jurors.

I will offer my humble view on this. The current system doesn't handle game sessions getting delayed. Since there was no rule for how play is to be resumed after it was suspended, there was a difference of opinion on whose responsibility it was to decide when the session could start, and on how much notice was needed. The ruling was effectively that there was no rule on notice for a released session.

IMO we could easily leave the current law in effect and merely add something like the section titled Obstruction in this proposal. We'd have to correct the mistaken impression that the "ruling" in the complaint last turn means that sessions don't need a starting time, since it was really about "released" sessions not needing a time.

However, just because a smaller change is sufficient it doesn't prevent anyone from pressing for a bigger change.

 

[fed1943]

I think this point of the current law is clear.

I was one of the ten that voted "Not Guilty". I cannot speak for the others,
but I can for myself.

My different point of view with who voted "Guilty" was not about the law, but
about "the conclusion about events".

I thought, and do think, that when an ordinary citizen follows point by point
what the competent Court told him to do, he can never be guilty.

Is that simple. To be guilty is not the same as to be cause of the relevant
consequence, like it would be if we were on the domain of a naturalistic law,
like Chemistry; conversely, is a legal imputation based on legal duties and the
expected behaviour of a normal person under the same situation.

Best regards,

 

[ordinaryguy]

I also voted guilty, because the law does include what is supposed to be done if a turnchat is delayed.

But I feel that the 24 hour notice is too short, maybe a 48 hour notice could be better in allowing officials to post instructions on time. On some days, I have RL activities which prevent me from posting instructions on time. But if I had 2 days to do so, it would reduce the chance of such a situation occurring.

 

[Hyronymus]

Can we stay on topic please and not state what we voted in the jury poll.

 

[Hyronymus]

I am withdrawing this proposal in favor of The Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD.