Deux Rivereris Riots!!

[Strider]

To start, what I hope will be a succesful compromise, here's my idea right now (not in a constitutional format):

Any decision not mentioned in a leaders instructions requires a 7/8's vote of the active citizens within the turnchat. If the leader of the deparment in question is avaible, and agree's to the choice, it is then marked down to a 4/5's of the active citizens within the turnchat. The DP may veto any decision he deems goes against the general will of the citizenry.(forum citizens)

Then, if we had the council member at large addition:

The Council Member at Large is required to gather information of the will of the citizenry and display this information to the leaders. He/She is also incharge of making sure that leader's instructions follows the will of the citizenry. They may also veto decisions passed in the chat if they deem that it goes against the general will of the citizenry

I would like to see some thought out views, and what might be changed to make it fairer to everyone, instead of just pointing out everything that you think is wrong.

Edit: Forgot one more part.

If fewer then 3 citizens are active within the chat, then the chat may be stopped or postponed until a more active chat is made

 

[ravensfire]

Strider,

Sorry, but I won't compromise on this issue. Spot votes do not belong here. It's a way for a small, unelected group of people to exercise a significant amount of power over the demogame.

Let the elected leaders determine how much flexibility they want to give to the DP. We elected them, entrusted them with the power to make decisions. I did not vote for anyone (other than the DP) to attend the chat and make decisions there. That's just not right.

I am as guilty as anyone, but there were no significant debates this term that I saw. This would have been a great issue for the Executive branch offices.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Strider,

Sorry, but I won't compromise on this issue. Spot votes do not belong here. It's a way for a small, unelected group of people to exercise a significant amount of power over the demogame.

Let the elected leaders determine how much flexibility they want to give to the DP. We elected them, entrusted them with the power to make decisions. I did not vote for anyone (other than the DP) to attend the chat and make decisions there. That's just not right.

I am as guilty as anyone, but there were no significant debates this term that I saw. This would have been a great issue for the Executive branch offices.

-- Ravensfire

I beleve we should have spots votes make a come back. I beleve that the citizens should have a say on things when they are present in the chatroom. The citizens should have and excercise there power in the demogame.

 

[Octavian X]

To those against spot votes: Tell me, then, what is the purpose of a turn chat? Why should we even hold a chat if no one has the capacity to actually make a decision during the process of the turn chat?

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Octavian X
To those against spot votes: Tell me, then, what is the purpose of a turn chat? Why should we even hold a chat if no one has the capacity to actually make a decision during the process of the turn chat?

Ah, young Octavian X. Long before you became a Demogamer, long before Scythia was a thought bubble in your brain (yes, I remember the story of that name), in the very begining of the first Demogame, the Turn Chat was for the Leaders to come and advise the President. I say advise, as that's all it was to be. Eventually, more power filtered down to the people and the Leaders were to pass the will of the people onto the President. Then everyone wanted in on the Turn Chats, and history was written. Soon the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread was born and the Leaders had to post their Instructions to be followed by the President. The Turn Chat was a meeting of the minds. It was a place to gather and dream. A place of story-telling. Bah! That's all for the romantics (like me ). Truth be told, it was a place where people could go and verify that the Instructions they had given the President were carried out! We wanted to watch! We wanted to make sure that things were done according to plan and that some cowboy President wasn't forsaking the rest of us, and doing what he wanted! That's the real reason for a Turn Chat. Verification of Gameplay. All the other stuff like fun and camaraderie are just icing on the cake. All the stuff that makes you smile and laugh out loud are extra. Someone, anyone needs to be there in an open Turn Chat to verify that the chatlog is correct. That the President does as he says he does. To make sure the saves get uploaded. To make sure the Turn Chat stops at ten turns (or close to it). There are a lot of reasons for a Turn Chat. Just remember, in the begining, only Leaders were allowed. And they only advised.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by CivGeneral


I beleve we should have spots votes make a come back. I beleve that the citizens should have a say on things when they are present in the chatroom. The citizens should have and excercise there power in the demogame.

Well I believe that is just an excuse for lazy leaders to make up for any mistakes they make in the Instruction Thread. It also enables leaders to give very little thought to their instructions. It also enables a small clique of people to have more power tha is right. If you want a game of Oligarchy/Aristocracy then go start your own and leave us to our game of DEMOCRACY.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Originally posted by Strider
Also, I don't have a "hand-full" of people supporting me, by the posts I've seen in this thread, there are several people who share the same general idea that I do. Oct, Rik, CT, & CG are the one's I think of without looking up.

Please Strider, remove me from your list; I am against spot votes in the chat. At least binding spotvotes.

There are several different styles of presidenting. One style is to accept solely the legally posted instructions. An other style is to discuss in the chatrooms to find out what the people want.

I am a president who accepts only legally posted instructions, but is willing to hear what the thoughts are, just as an indication. I might use a spot vote as an easy way of collecting advise. But it's only advise. The instructions decide first, and if they are absent; the DP decides.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Octavian X
To those against spot votes: Tell me, then, what is the purpose of a turn chat? Why should we even hold a chat if no one has the capacity to actually make a decision during the process of the turn chat?

Octavian,

Response to question 1:
To me, the purpose of a turn chat is for the DP to provide a running log of events as they are playing the game, creating a permanent record of their actions and allowing those at the chat to see what's going on and ensure no instructions are missed.

Response to question 2:
During the chat, multiple decision must be made by the DP. At times, the DP may request advice from those attending the chat - I strongly support such actions. The DP needs to be cognizant of the importance of these decisions, and move any important decisions back to the forum.

I don't want a DP that is essentially a robot. I am also not demanding that those attending a chat be ignored and cast aside. My deepest concern is that the power of spot votes will encourage those leaders who are active in chats to be less active in the forums because they can give instructions in the chat. I am concerned that people will warp and twist spot votes to allow them to override posted instructions.

I'll toss out my own question - should a spot vote be able to override an instruction posted in the TCIT? Essentially, we require leaders to follow the will of the people - who's will counts more - the forum or the chat?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Must I go over this again? Have you not read one of my posts? I have stated several times that they do not leave the forum citizens out and stated why they don't, but over and over again you once again repeat that they make the people who can attend the chat more powerful, and I've yet to see one person show any proof that it does so.

Also, RF, in reality the proposal above would never work, IMHO, it was a test, a fake to get your reaction. I designed it to where the DP still has the final decision is made by the DP, but the citizens inside of the chat still has a say. This "fake system" would give you exactly want you wanted, with a pretty even balance between each, but with one problem, if the DP does veto a decision made in the chat, then that decision can not be made, and that is why it would never work.

Though the system did prove that you are not against spot votes because you think there never work or give an unfair advantage to some citizens, it is a more personal matter. My is already posted, I think that you just don't want to see something you helped to create be replaced.

Also, Peri instead of repeating over and over again about how you don't like lazy leaders, please look up some and see that I've already dealed with your concern of "lazy leaders."

I've yet to see one good statement that states why spot votes are unfair, if they are limited in certain ways, and still no even thought of compromising.

Must we bicker and argue again and again like abunch of hot-headed fools, or are we to work-together and create something that fits the wants and needs of everyone? I have asked over and over again for you to atleast try a compromise, but still you steadfastly refuse. Just as many citizens who has posted within this thread support spot votes as there are that do not. This is not a topic to just be dismissed, if so, it will be brought up again, and again. I am saying this for one last time. Let's atleast attempt to make a compromise.

 

[Bootstoots]

Here's my opinion on this issue:

Spot votes are fine if a DP wants to call them for informational purposes only. Our current ruleset allows for that, and I think that makes the most sense. They should not, however, apply for any official matter, such as the resetting of sliders. I would, however, support allowing leaders to change their instructions in mid-chat if something unexpected comes up. I used this with Rik Meleet quite a bit during my term as president last DG. For instance, if we needed something rushed, and it wasn't in Rik's instructions to do so, I would ask him (he was almost always in the chat) whether it would be okay for me to rush something. If he agreed to the rush, I would perform it. I feel that the leaders should have the power to change their instructions mid-chat if the occasion warrants it, however they must post instructions at some point before the chat. I also see little need for the one hour rule; as long as the instructions are posted before the chat begins, why should it matter that they were posted close to the starting time for the turnchat?

 

[Cyc]

Is that a promise, Strider?

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Cyc
Is that a promise, Strider?

Is what a promise, your going to have to be alittle more specific.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Strider
I am saying this for one last time. Let's atleast attempt to make a compromise.

Is THAT a promise, Strider? And I'm just kiddin'. Don't get all bent out of shape.

 

[Gainy]

I support reverting back to the Spot votes. I don't see why the DP should make all the decisions, when it is after all a game of Democracy.

I do think some restrictions should be applied though, ie if it was obvious that the result(s) of the Spot Vote(s) were going against the general consensus of the DemoGamers --- not just the ones in Chat.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Cyc


Is THAT a promise, Strider? And I'm just kiddin'. Don't get all bent out of shape.

No, that's not a promise, that's just a figure of speech .

 

[donsig]

No spot votes. We should not even have informational spot votes. Any DP holding an *informational* citizen spot vote is just asking for trouble since even an *informational* spot vote can be paraded around (rightly or wrongly) as the *will of the people*.

As for citizens at the chat representing those who aren't at the chat... the only one I want representing me at the chat is the DP.

Concerning power at the chat: I am apalled at how some at the chat are so willing to disregard our rules when they are inconvenient. Every chat I've been at this game has had an instance when one of our rules was about to be tossed out the window. I seem to be the only one to speak up when this happens. It makes me wonder what happens when I'm not there. No, I do not have time to read the chat logs to find out. I should not have to read them. I should be able to have confidence that the rules we all agreed on will be followed.

Finally, We are all share part of the blame. We do not elect leaders to make up game play instructions for us. We should all have a hand in writing those instructions. It is not only our leaders who had not done their jobs, all of us citizens are to blame as well!

Rather than worry about what might happen or not happen someday, can we not concentrate of making pertient instructions for what is happening now?

The topic of this thread is about our capitol city rioting. How should we handle riots in our cities? How should we prevent them? Let's decide that and draft some instructions. Then if the propers leaders do not post our instructions we can get new leaders next term.

Do we prefer to hire entertainers or raise the lux rate?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Gainy bo
I support reverting back to the Spot votes. I don't see why the DP should make all the decisions, when it is after all a game of Democracy.

I do think some restrictions should be applied though, ie if it was obvious that the result(s) of the Spot Vote(s) were going against the general consensus of the DemoGamers --- not just the ones in Chat.

There's no way of telling if the spot vote goes against the general consensus! If we want to reduce the amount of decision making by the DP then we have to start getting good instructions to the DP!

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Gainy bo
I support reverting back to the Spot votes. I don't see why the DP should make all the decisions, when it is after all a game of Democracy.

In my opinion, Democracy implies that each citizen has equal input. If binding spot votes are allowed, then each citizen does not have equal input. It will be impossible to have all citizens at a chat to give their equal input. Therefore I would prefer that an elected official make the decisions for the entire citizenry rather than giving those citizens present input on the decision and not giving the rest of the citizens that opportunity.

The second issue is of allowing Ministers to give specific orders to the DP during the chat to respond to changing events in the game. I don't think I oppose that, but I am not firmly decided on the issue.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by donsig
No spot votes. We should not even have informational spot votes. Any DP holding an *informational* citizen spot vote is just asking for trouble since even an *informational* spot vote can be paraded around (rightly or wrongly) as the *will of the people*.

Tagging on a clause about how the spot votes are not considered representative of the will of the people should solve that problem.

 

[Cyc]

The topic of this thread is about our capitol city rioting. How should we handle riots in our cities? How should we prevent them? Let's decide that and draft some instructions. Then if the propers leaders do not post our instructions we can get new leaders next term.

Do we prefer to hire entertainers or raise the lux rate?

donsig, back on the second page (I remember you don't have time to read prior pages ) I posted th statement below. It deals with what you say above. I think most of what has been said in this thread is null and void becuase of the Instruction that DS posted. NOT that everything that has been said doesn't go in another thread. It's just that I think I addressed your concern on page 2 of this thread. I reposted the comment about the 2nd and 3rd city just to remind everyone.

Originally posted by Cyc
Plus in re-reading the Turn Chat Instruction thread, DaveShack, our Internal Affairs Minister, posted legal Instructions that covered what the President did in reaction to DR going into a riot.

Here is the Instruction. It clearly states that the DP can hire an entertainer to reduce unhappiness in the city. WTG, DS!

What I can't understand is why no one is taking responsibility for the build queues of our last two cities. I have never seen two cities go unattended like this before. These cities are in the first Province and should be taken care of by the Governor. But if political games are what we're playing here, or if the Governor is just too unsure of the rules to act accordingly, the AI Minister should step in and do it. This leaving everything undone for someone else to do because no one has the huevos to make a decision is unworthy of Fanatican Government. I demand we get this situation taken care of.