Originally posted by Peri
Oh what a load of old trolley. The new rules require proper, considered and well thought out instructions from the leaders. The old system allowed lazy leaders to do as they pleased without due consideration of everyone else. Decisions however minor cannot be taken within chat because it disenfranchises too many people. The purpose of changing the old system was to stop these abuses. Only those who attended the chat session had any power. This is the root of the objection to the new system as everyone who strove to implement it knows.
As a minister of defence under the new system I gave detailed and clear instructions that provided for most if not all eventualities. Please check them if you dont believe me. Every leader is capable of posting thorough instructions and every leader should post thorough instructions. The days of lazy leadership and mutual backslapping are over.
No, every leader is NOT capable of predicting what happens during a T/C. There is hundreds of differant circumstance's that could happen, and they all depend on a hundred differant things. No, gone are not the days of lazy leadership, all you have to do to post do the job now is write circumstance's down and what needs to be done if it happens, just keep a folded up piece of paper in your back pocket and go throughout the day as you normally do. Work is going through the save and making notes on the advisors strength rating of every civ after each T/C, then separate them by power even more by calculating in there wealth and average technological research. Then label the Civ a threat level that fits it.No the days of lazy leaders is not gone.
Also, I would like to point out one person who use to be in the DG who was only able to attend turnchats while he was President, Shaitan. He had a great deal of power and influence within this game.
Now, it does not give to much power to the people in the T/C, as I pointed out it gave the citizens in the chat the power, that is now given to the president alone ("who should take suggestions and advise from the citizens in the chat"). Simply enough, we've succesfully given the power that a representation of several citizens use to hold, and given it to just one person, with alittle note saying they should listen to the people in the T/C. Tell me, what is fair about that?
Cyc
Strider, I suppose this question/example you have brought up is using this same scenario you want where the DP can make decisions on the fly, like trading for Lit without the knowledge of the Trade Minister or the general public? This is a very bad example, as we the Citizens don't want the DP making decisions like that on the fly. Micro-Managemnt of Laborers to stop unhappiness? Yes, by all means let the DP do that. Moving a Warrior in a different direction for a turn? No big deal. But taking away the major duties and responsibilities of an elected Official? I don't think so.
The reason we don't want the President to have the powers you want them to have is so that the President can't run the game by themselves. We have other elected Officials who pass our wishes onto the President. These wishes must be heard.
Cyc, if you didn't want the DP to make decisions like that, then why did you give them the power to do so? Also, I don't want to give the President more power, I want to take power away from the President. Yes, instructions must be followed, but as I've pointed out a million times, instructions can not be so detailed to list what we should do in every possible circumstance, and alot of decisions has to be made on the fly, and guess who makes them? The DP, and the DP alone.
Moving on, tell me... if all of a sudden a Civ pops up with a deal we can't resist what are we going to do? Stop the whole T/C for just a trade? Stopping the T/C for every circumstance that would need a leader/govonor instructions would greatly hamper the game, and prolly lose the DG alot of it's citizens, because of the slow pase.
Like I've said before, some decisions HAVE to be made during the turnchat inorder for the system to work effectivly, and it would be much better if a group of the citizens make them, then just one person.
Also, the other topic at hand in this thread, leaders shouldn't beable to change everything on whim, and espicially if it goes against the citizens will, but is a govonor to poll every little decision to find the citizens will? If so, then all of our leaders are slacking off, badly.
Now, like I've pointed out before also, the old system was designed to get the general mood of the population on a matter that needed immediant handling within the T/C. Sure there was the odd moment when something was passed in the T/C that didn't wouldn't have received enough support in the forums, but laying almost all of the non-T/C stopping decisions on one person is extremely unfair.
One example of this is today during the T/C:
[17:20] <@Chieftess> Before we pop it, we could change the settler, just incase we pop a free settler .
[17:21] <+cyc1> The world of Hut.
[17:21] <+Sarevok> thats rare though
[17:21] <@RikMeleet> CT: do you mean we won't get a settler if we are building one ?
[17:21] *** Furiey (jirc@9b184f5.370af11b.cable.ntl.com) [joined] #turnchat.
[17:21] *** Chieftess [voices] Furiey
[17:21] <@RikMeleet> Welcome Back fur
[17:21] <@Chieftess> right
[17:21] <+Sarevok> hi
[17:21] <@Chieftess> I read that in a few places (mainly Civ3 and Strats & Tips)
[17:21] <+Furiey> hi
[17:21] <@Chieftess> I should know. I moderate those forums. 
[17:21] <+Sarevok> no, its a suggestion to save shields
[17:21] <+BlueStrider> I don't think that's true
[17:21] <@Chieftess> I think it is
[17:21] <@RikMeleet> OK, I'll change settler to The Pyramids (won't finish that in 1, but remind me to change it back)
[17:21] <@Chieftess> Maybe we should get the Myth Busters and have them find out.
[17:22] <+donsig> hmmm.... messing with build queues now
[17:22] <+Sarevok> where is the goody hut?
[17:22] <@RikMeleet> Music Update: "One - U2"
[17:22] <+donsig> so who will want the CC, Plexus or Minister of theinterior
[17:22] <+BlueStrider> I've poped huts before in early games while building a settler, and got another one
[17:25] <@RikMeleet> Donsig I need to know: do you disagree now, within the turn, to change temprarily to the Pyramids while we pop the hut ?
[17:26] <+donsig> Do the posted instructions from the governor give you authority to make temporary changes?
[17:26] <+cyc1> RM just do as he has requested. We don't need any mumbo-jumboo ritual rights to pop a hut
[17:26] <+BlueStrider> I see no reason why we can't, even in our rules... a govonors orders are to BUILD this.... just as long as it's built, makes no differance
[17:27] <+cyc1> just do it and pop the hut
[17:27] <@RikMeleet> Music Update: "Aan de kust - Blöf"
[17:27] <+Sarevok> i would just keep the settler as is, the chance of popping a setler is next to none
[17:27] <@Chieftess> Lemme ask Plexus
[17:27] <+donsig> ask himCT - it makes no difference
[17:27] <@RikMeleet> It stays a settler. Presidential decision.
Now the gov of Berry wasn't in the T/C, but if he was, he should have been allowed to approve a temporary change of the queue. As it would have no effect of the time the settler is completed. (log is cropped some BTW).
Yes, I agree that if something important comes up then it should be taken to the forums, but the minor World Map and 30g for World Map trades in mid-T/C's should not be enough to stop a T/C, and I'd prefer if the citizens within the chat were the one's who approved it, rather than the DP just deciding it's a good trade and accepts it.
Also, note that there are thousand of differant circumstance's, the one showed above I wouldn't really mind the DP deciding or not, but it depends on the situation, if were low on gold and trying to do a massive warrior --> swordsmen upgrade for a war and the DP decides to do that trade, the situation change's drastically, and I prefer a group of citizens to decide on wether it's good enough or not.
I am not saying we should give ultimate power to everyone within the T/C, I'm saying we should work out a system that works effectivly without slowing down the game, and still getting the general populations mood on a subject.
We could always implement a larger quroum for small decisions made during a T/C, maybe like 7/8ths of the current (or active) citizens. This would be to make sure that an decisions made in the T/C is amost certain to get approval within the forums also. This might be alittle rough though, and 4/5's might be alittle better, but you still get the general idea. ( I Hope so anyway).
I would suggest something along the following though:
Any decisions made within the turnchat must be approved by a 4/5's vote of the active citizens. Including the DP and leaders present.
Any "force" change on a leaders instructions must get a 7/8's approval by the current(notice the differance between current used here and active used above) citizens. Including the DP and leaders present.
Active is defined by any citizen that has said anything or joined in the last 10 minutes.
Current is defined by any citizen present within the channel at the time of the vote.
This allows for instructions to be adaptable within the T/C, and a 7/8's approval vote of all current citizens is pretty harsh, and will prolly only be approved if there is a large number of support for it,which with that in mind, there will prolly also be a large support for it in the forums also. It would prolly need some fine-tuning, but that would the midst of it. It also allows simple decisions that might not be directly confronted in a leaders instruction to be approved by citizens, instead of just the DP.
As you can see, I'm not suggesting that citizens who can make it to T/C's are given more power, the only thing they do is act as a representative of the general population.
We are expecting are to much from our leaders, and giving little in the way of help, unless you count making it difficult for them to decide anything by a million differant "I think we should do this" idea's. I don't see why anyone would really want to be a leader anymore, sense they get ordered and bullied around so much it's lost it's comedy value. We expect our leaders to do this, and then do that, ok sure... they have no social life... they have no families to think about, or tests to study for and homework to do. No, our leaders are humans who voulanteered to do this, they've got there own lives, and they can't spend 2-3 hrs. a day working on everything the citizens want. Then, when they fail to do something we call them lazy and a bad leader? Come on, stop complaining about every mistake they make and start looking at all they actually get done, and atleast give them a Thank You for it.
(wow... 10,1016 character post.... sheesh)
