CoS Discussion: Section D/E - Turn Chat Rules

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
Our legal life would be so much easier if we explicitly defined what a legal game play instruction is and peg our laws to that definition.

And 'lo, a thread was found.

And there, on the other side, in the middle of the other siee, away from everything else on the other side, in parantheses, capital letters, quotated, read the following words:

("KID, HAVE YOU DEFINED LEGAL INSTRUCTIONS?")



-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Cyc
Regaurdless of how we decide to go about handling the process of naming Chat Room Operators, we still need to make the changes in Sections D and E listed below.

D.4. If the Designated Player leaves, they pass a current save game and control to the next person in the COC. The controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

D.7. Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that turn chat
and will not be required to relinquish play to a late arriving/returning but higher ranked
official. If a player does wish to relinquish control of the save to another player in the COC, the controling player will post a save in the Game Save post of the TCI. This is the save the new Player will take control of.

In E.8, we should take out "and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls", and that should not be investigated. We should, however, put in a clause that states "A Designated Player may call for a Citizen Spot Vote or a Council Spot vote at any time, although the results of these polls are advisory at best and are not binding."

So, I can assume with all the verbage that has transpired since I posted the above, that these concerns will be followed verbatim?

 

[ravensfire]

Cyc,

Suggestion to D.4 looks good, makes a lot of sense, as does D.7.

E.8 - No, no, no, no, NO! There should be no references of any type to any kind of spot votes! Period. If you want to put anything, put something like the DP may request advice from those attending the turn chat, but is not obligated to act upon that advice.

Spot Votes == Bad Thing

-- Ravensfire

 

[eyrei]

I'll add my voice to those saying spot votes should not be written into law and should be considered only advice from those present at the chat.

 

[Cyc]

That was my intent, so leaving those "forbidden words" out of the text is fine with me. (See my post to Octavian.)

 

[ravensfire]

You're right!

Those foul words are a touchy subject with me though - I'm doing my best to ensure such vile concepts never enter the game!

-- Ravensfire

 

[eyrei]

I registered a new channel called #Turnchat on mIRC. That should clear up any problems resulting from trying to change ownership.

 

[Bootstoots]

Is #turnchat going to become the official channel for turnchats, or only a secondary channel in case conflicts arise?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Is #turnchat going to become the official channel for turnchats, or only a secondary channel in case conflicts arise?

It is my intention that it be the official channel, so we don't have to worry about the channel owner not being around.

 

[ravensfire]

Proposal to be polled in 2004

D.  Turn Chat Procedures 
  1.  The Designated Player (see Chain of Command) should be in the chat room at 
      least 10 minutes before the scheduled time and begin play at the specified 
      start time.  The Designated Player may conduct any prepatory activities 
      that can be immediately undone without reloading the save, at any time 
      prior to the start of the turn chat. 
      a.  The primary chat room shall be #Turnchat on irc.irc-chat.net.
  2.  If the Designated Player has not shown up 10 minutes after the scheduled 
      start of the turn chat, a new Designated Player shall be chosen from the
      officials present following the Chain of Command. 
  3.  The Designated Player shall upload a save of the game after turn 0, every 5 
      turns after that, and a final save at the conclusion of the chat. 
  4.  If the Designated Player voluntarily relinquishes control, they shall post a 
      current save of the game in the TCIT.  The next person in the COC attending 
      the chat shall download this save and resume playing the game with that save.
  5.  If the Designated Player disappears and has not reappeared within 10 minutes, 
      the next person attending the chat on the COC shall become the Designated 
      Player using the most recently uploaded save game. 
  6.  If a game has to be used that is not current, then the moves from the chat log 
      must be duplicated. 
  7.  Once a player has started playing the save, they are the Designated Player for
      that turn chat and shall not be required to relinquish play to a late 
      arriving/returning, but higher ranked official. 

E.  Turn Chat Rules 
  1.  Only citizens of the Democracy game shall be voiced. 
  2.  Citizens are encouraged to provide constructive advice & positively contribute 
      to the chat.
  3.  Spaming, lobbying, repetitive questions and any other unnecessary traffic in the 
      chat is forbidden. 
  4.  Clones are not allowed! 
  5.  Violations of the chat rules shall result in the offender being de-voiced. 
  6.  The chat operators hold the right to de-voice all non-officials if the chat gets too 
      confusing or is disturbed by someone permanently. The Designated Player 
      makes this decision. 
  7.  De-voicing actions shall be investigated by the Judiciary. 
  8.  During turn chats, #Demogame is still open for totally free discussions. 
      Departments or special interest groups can also open private discussion rooms. 
  9.  The Designated Player retains the right to end the chat turn at their discretion.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Ravensfire, a question ~

Where did we specify the maximum number of turns to be played in a chat?If you remember, you can save me a lot of research. Of course if you know that we didn't do it, it will also save me the same research time.

If we have not specified the maximum number of turns to be played in a turn chat, then we should do so and we should make it so by law in the CoL. In post #20 of this thread, donsig brought that point up, but I'm not sure we carried through with it. I like the inclusion of your E.9 (above), but that should be applied to anytime prior of the maximum turns allowed.

 

[Cyc]

Well, I just went through what we've approved so far and can't find any verbage concerning the maximum number of turns allowed in a turn chat. Thoughts?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
Well, I just went through what we've approved so far and can't find any verbage concerning the maximum number of turns allowed in a turn chat. Thoughts?

Wow - completely missed this!

Good question. Tradition says 10, but you know how I feel about tradition - it's all good and nice, but mean exactly squat in the Judiciary!

I would recommend that we require the President to state in their turn chat schedule the maximum number of turns the chat will go.

-- Ravensfire

 

[zorven]

I like the idea of having a max number of turns simply because it allows for better planning by the various leaders. The more turns that are played the more the game situation changes from when the chat started, thus increasingly making the leaders instructions less relevant. I think 10 is a good number turns.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


I would recommend that we require the President to state in their turn chat schedule the maximum number of turns the chat will go.

-- Ravensfire

Great idea, Ravensfire. I'd like to see that too. But we need something in the laws that state the MAXIMUM number of turns a DP is allowed to play in a turn chat.

How far do you have to think back in your life to remember a politician that didn't fulfill his campaign promises. Or didn't follow the proposed schedule or timeline?

We need legislation stating the Maximum number of turns allowed in any Turn Chat by any player. You know as well as I do we can't just wish or hope things go the way we planned them.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven
I like the idea of having a max number of turns simply because it allows for better planning by the various leaders. The more turns that are played the more the game situation changes from when the chat started, thus increasingly making the leaders instructions less relevant. I think 10 is a good number turns.

Here's my problem with stating a maximum number of turns - the first Term.

Hey - let's limit ourselves to a 10-turn chat for the first month - cool! That means we'll have what, 30 minute chats, at most? C'mon - we don't need to be THAT slow.

In this regard, let this be handled by the President, to a point. Remeber, citizens have the right to demand a vote of an office holder on a specific issue within the domain of that office holder. At least, once CoL Article C passes they will. I quote:

  6.  Right to Seek a Redress of Grievances
    B.  Any citizen can request that a departmental leader post a poll that lies 
        within that leader’s responsibilities. 
      1.  If two other citizens agree with the proposed poll (proposal 
          seconded and carried) the request becomes a demand and the 
          leader must comply.

In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I'm OK with having a variable number of turns per chat specified in advance by the President, but the number to be played needs to be announced far enough in advance that leaders can conduct discussions and post instructions that go far enough into the future.

How about saying the turnchat schedule and number of turns to be played for each must be posted at least 3 days prior to the scheduled time for the chat. This would give adequate planning time and permit someone to challenge the number of turns to be played if it seems too far out of line.

On a separate subject, have we set a law or standard for the information which must be provided in the turn log? A log of the chat without specifying what it must contain is insufficient. My inclination is that it needs to be at least as detailed as the average Succession Game turnlog. Late in DG3 we started getting 10 line summaries instead of an actual log and it became difficult to determine exactly what was done, and why.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Here's my problem with stating a maximum number of turns - the first Term.

Hey - let's limit ourselves to a 10-turn chat for the first month - cool! That means we'll have what, 30 minute chats, at most? C'mon - we don't need to be THAT slow....

...In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.

-- Ravensfire

That's pure b/s Ravensfire, as is your claim of wanting this game to be forum based. You tell these citizen how much you favor control of the game to be forum based, then you want to railroad a rule through that allows the President to play as many turns as they damn well feel like, without any citizen input from the forums. What hogwash! You're pulling the wool over these people's eyes and you know it.

The first turns of a Civ3 game are very critical. Because of discussion and the President asking advice in the first t/c it will be far from a 30 minute chat. We're probably looking at getting a screenshot every turn and discussing it among the attendees. Ten turns will be plenty of action for the first chat. It will give ample ammunition for discussion in the forums. The second turn chat will be just as important. Forum input is necessary for a successful Demogame, I heard you say things like that on many occasions. But now you want to rip off the forum-users and put the entire scope of the game's begining in the hands of the chat attendees. That's madness. Put down that hash pipe, sir.

We need to keep bringing back the save to the forums for discussion on our potential moves and options. 10 turns is a great limit for this. It allows the Governor to get a discussion going about what to build based on what we find. Allowing the President to run helter-skelter through the game is not a good idea.

And you need to stop saying that you are in favor of a forum based game, as this quote clearly shows that you are not.

 

[Cyc]

quoting Ravensfire:
...In many cases we are using our legal system to limit the powers of our leaders. That's fine, but remember those are absolute, inflexible limits. Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be. CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


I have to come back to this again. This is such slick politician talk, I can't let it go. You say:

Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

How can you call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit? There is no stated limit. If the Presedient says we're only going to go 25 turns this t/c, but decides to go 30, what? we're going to cry and say "hey he took more turns than he said he would." Then he gets a warning for breaking a Standard of the CoS? Meanwhile, 30 turns are burned, never to be seen again? That's rediculous. I doubt the President would be convicted anyway.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be.

Yes, we need to let the President determine how long the Turn Chat should be, up to 10 turns. No more. The citizens need to review his work and discuss their options.

CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


Do you realize how long this process would take at the begining of the game? We would immediately go into gridlock, becuase we'd have to have discussion and a poll for something that should be squared away now. I'm sure if you asked the citizens if they wanted the President to ignore the forum goers and just plow through the game at their discretion, they would object, and giving them the right to call for a poll is a backwards way of correcting the problem.

I can't believe you're actually backing this idea of screwing the forum-goers.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
I have to come back to this again. This is such slick politician talk, I can't let it go. You say:

Trust me - I'll call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit.

How can you call for a review of any request to exceed a stated limit? There is no stated limit. If the Presedient says we're only going to go 25 turns this t/c, but decides to go 30, what? we're going to cry and say "hey he took more turns than he said he would." Then he gets a warning for breaking a Standard of the CoS? Meanwhile, 30 turns are burned, never to be seen again? That's rediculous. I doubt the President would be convicted anyway.

Excuse, but you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Limitations, as in a broader sense, ya know, the limits we have placed on various people to do their job? Such as scheduling a turn chat, voting on cash rushes, etc? Yeah, those. Limitations such as those are fixed and inviolate. Some I don't have a problem with, others I do. I respect and will defend them all.

Your example is a wonderful example of political spewing, Cyc. Let's see, does that really apply to just about every violation? Why yes, yes it does! Not to mention, given your example, I sincerely hope you reread the laws you have ratified. As a member of the Judiciary, I would expect you to have remembered that a save should have been posted every 5 turns. Gee, let's give him a warning - when you just declare the save to be used is from the 25th turn. Oh wait, that destroys that arguement. Sorry, Cyc. I'll not disturb the pink skies in your fantasy world again.

Rediculous (sic) indeed.

No, what we need to do is give the President the power to determine how long the chats will be.

CoL C.6.B is the perfect check on that power - the citizens can ensure that the Pres. doesn't go overboard by calling for a vote on the turn limits. This is a case where we should use the law to allow the People to manage the authority of a leader.


Do you realize how long this process would take at the begining of the game? We would immediately go into gridlock, becuase we'd have to have discussion and a poll for something that should be squared away now. I'm sure if you asked the citizens if they wanted the President to ignore the forum goers and just plow through the game at their discretion, they would object, and giving them the right to call for a poll is a backwards way of correcting the problem.

Oh, I'm sorry. We can't advocate such a system that already exists in law, because it's too slow? It's too slow? The People exercising a right is too slow? The People doing their job and monitoring their officials is too slow? The People complaining about a schedule that's (hopefully) been up for over a week is too slow?

Whoops, there goes most of the game then. No need for discussion, that would just slow things down. Polls - too slow! I understand now - just let the elected officials take care of everything and don't worry my pretty little head. Just wonder off to that RPG thread over there and amuse your self. Gotcha...

I can't believe you're actually backing this idea of screwing the forum-goers.

Oh give me a break - now who's spouting off political clap-trap. That's bunk, and you darn well know, Cyc.

Oh, wait. I understand. I have the gall to DEMAND that people get off their lazy tush, and actually examine the actions of their leaders and use the mechanisms we have in place to control them. How terrible of me! Why, we're supposed to have the inflexible limitations of the law on everything! People don't want to think for themselves after all, but let a select few control their thoughts and actions.

My fault, I'll start taking those pills again and return to the good little thrall I'm supposed to be.

Screwing the forum-goers. This is coming from a person demanding, requiring, the on-line chats that screw the forum goers. Sorry Cyc, my record is much stronger than yours about the rights of forum-goers. I get to hold you responsible for denying me the opportunity to run for President. For myself, and on the behalf of others in similar situations, I thank you!

For the last time, because I'm sick and tired of you and other continually failing to actually get my viewpoint right. I think it's because I'm actually giving people more rights, but you don't like that, so have to spin it.

I support the right of the President to determine how the game play sessions are held. Period. This introduces two things. First, the People ought to demand of their candidates more information - such as how to they plan to conduct their turn chats. Second, the People use the right documented above to force a vote on the issue.

Shock! Gasp! I want the right to choose! I want people who don't always have the time to run a chat to actually become President and play the save! Oh dear, that doesn't quite fit the evil, nasty Turn-Chats Are The Only Good mold, does it?

Bah - spin that how you want, you all do anyway. And you complain about me trying to politic and "sick politician talk". Need a mirror?

An absolutely disgusted
-- Ravensfire