Deux Rivereris Riots!!

Chieftess

Moderator
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
24,160
Location
Baltimore
(yes, I can't spell French words. :p)

Because of our "wonderful" new laws, DR couldn't even be micromanaged (since Rik forgot to do a happiness check) to stop rioting! (Note: To the best of my knowledge, he couldn't change it because of the slider instructions - which was made known while I was typing this) Either:

1 - The lux slider would have needed to be raised mid-turnchat
2 - A citizen removed (affecting the build queue order)

If we don't want our cities to riot because some haven't taken into effect happiness, then I guess we'll just have to constantly take it to the forums. This just delays the game so we wind up voting on every micromanagement decision.

Rik Meleet forgot to do a happiness check, but the point is the entertainer. Not only does this mess up build queues, there's other measures to take besides entertainers in the capital this early. The luxury slider could have been adjusted, but... because of the new laws, I don't think donsig could have changed the rates.

Why?

Because it wasn't before the turnchat. This time, no one posted the lux slider instructions, so Rik could have changed it (I think).

Anyway, look at this scenario. What if this happened?

VP makes an instruction: "Leave science at 100%".
Governor of Berry leaves an instruction: "None of my cities are allowed to use specialists".

During say, turn 3, one of those cities in Berry grows, but wait... there's 2 content and 1 unhappy.

The lux rate can't be changed, and neither can the city. So, what then? Just let the city riot because no one could decide? Stop the chat? If we keep stopping the chat for every potential conflict of instructions, then nothing can get done. IMHO, it was better when advisors could make minor adjustments. If no one is allowed to change an instruction, then what's the purpose of the turn 5 save?
 
This new system is abou of bullcrap and it isn't effective at all. Why was it changed? Because some people decided that they wanted more power. We need to bring back the system of Spot Votes during T/C's. Sure it leave's some people out, BUT it gets the general populations consent on a matter, and most of the time a spot vote will end up the same way as a normal poll in the forum.
 
Sorry, CT. You've got it wrong. Our wonderful new rules did not prevent the President from Micro-Managing DR. If you check the chat log, while you were out eating (if I remember correctly), RM berated himself for not checking DR for MM. Because of this DR rioted. He had been doing MM up until that point. You are slamming our Laws needlessly here.
 
The new rules also did not prevent the President from changing the slider instrucitons. Since no instructions were posted the slider settings were at the discretion of the DP. This was pojnted out to him in the chat. Read the log, the turn chat instruction thread and the rules.
 
Originally posted by Cyc
Sorry, CT. You've got it wrong. Our wonderful new rules did not prevent the President from Micro-Managing DR. If you check the chat log, while you were out eating (if I remember correctly), RM berated himself for not checking DR for MM. Because of this DR rioted. He had been doing MM up until that point. You are slamming our Laws needlessly here.

Far from it.... There is still a thousand other differant thing's that your stupid laws prevents. Tell me, why did all of the power within the turnchat be given to one person, instead of the group of citizens present? This gives the President way to much power, instead of the old system, which gave a random group of citizens the power. The system was only changed, because some people said it gave more power to the citizens there, this to me sounds like everyone within this game is power hungry, selfish. Do we not trust eachother anymore? Obviously not, enough anyway to convince some people that it is in THERE best interests to hamper the progress of the DG, just for they get to post, about how they "support or disapprove of this because of this reason," most of the time useless to begin with. Now, this is not a "wonderful" system, it hurts us more than it does good.

  1. It hampers the progress of the game, as govonors can no longer change a queue in mid-chat. IE: We find an unexpected trade and get lit on Turn 2. The Govonor of Berry can not change to a library, because of these "wonderful" rules. Even though the temple is to be completed in one turn.
  2. Give to much power to the president. The Trade minister can not make treaties in the middle of the game, even though the AI's could have researched two more techs, it is still the presidents decision wether to make that trade. (Bad checks & balance's)
  3. The minister of defense can no longer decide to block a settlers progress, by changing his orders in mid-chat. So the warrior he asked to explore during his instructions 7 turns ago has to continue exploring.
    [/list=1]
 
I beleve that the current rule set sevearly hampers the game and the leaders from doing there duties. The current rules prevents the T&T leader from checking trades mid-term, Prevents the military from calling a retreat if the battle does not go as planed, prevents the Minister of the Interior from setting the slider when we are close to finishing reasearching (IE lowering the sci slider while keeping the same turn countdown).
 
Originally posted by Strider
Tell me, why did all of the power within the turnchat be given to one person, instead of the group of citizens present? This gives the President way to much power, instead of the old system, which gave a random group of citizens the power.

It was changed because the spirit of the demogame is not consistent with giving a random group of citizens the power. I am no fan of these rules but if you all are going to try to make this a chat based game then I'll stick with the crappy rules.
 
Originally posted by donsig


It was changed because the spirit of the demogame is not consistent with giving a random group of citizens the power. I am no fan of these rules but if you all are going to try to make this a chat based game then I'll stick with the crappy rules.

The game has ALWAYS been a forum based game. The thing's that needed taken care of during the chat (which like I said before, is now taken care of by just the president alone) use to be voted for by a number of citizens. Sure, I agree it's not fair, but the new system is even less fair. I want to know what you guys were thinking when you did this, "Well, this is kind of unfair to make people who can attend turnchats make decisions, so let's just have one person make ALL of the decisions inside of the TC."

The sprit of the demogame is to get the majority of the populations view on a particular topic. It is not to let one person control all aspects of the game, even if it isn't permanent.
 
Originally posted by Strider

  1. It hampers the progress of the game, as govonors can no longer change a queue in mid-chat. IE: We find an unexpected trade and get lit on Turn 2. The Govonor of Berry can not change to a library, because of these "wonderful" rules. Even though the temple is to be completed in one turn.
  2. Give to much power to the president. The Trade minister can not make treaties in the middle of the game, even though the AI's could have researched two more techs, it is still the presidents decision wether to make that trade. (Bad checks & balance's)
  3. The minister of defense can no longer decide to block a settlers progress, by changing his orders in mid-chat. So the warrior he asked to explore during his instructions 7 turns ago has to continue exploring.
    [/list=1]


  1. 1) If the governor prefers a library to a temple then he can write instructions to make it so: If we acquire literature before the temple is built then switch the temple to a library. This should not be too difficult for a governor to do.

    2) The trade minister is supposed to be doing what the people want and not what the trade minister wants. The trade minister can post instrucitons like this: Check for trades every turn. If we can aquire *insert list here* for *insert list here* then make the trades. Note that the inserts can be general or specific or somewhere in between depending on what the citizens want.

    3) How about this: Send this warrior *specify which one here* exploring *specify area to explore here* but if a foreign settler shows up here *specify area* then use this warrior to block said settler.

    Better yet, we could make some rules about certian things like micromanagement of cities and sliders and let the DP do these - he is the one playing the save!

    Back to the thread topic, CT posted this:

    VP makes an instruction: "Leave science at 100%".
    Governor of Berry leaves an instruction: "None of my cities are allowed to use specialists".

    During say, turn 3, one of those cities in Berry grows, but wait... there's 2 content and 1 unhappy.

    The lux rate can't be changed, and neither can the city. So, what then? Just let the city riot because no one could decide? Stop the chat? If we keep stopping the chat for every potential conflict of instructions, then nothing can get done. IMHO, it was better when advisors could make minor adjustments. If no one is allowed to change an instruction, then what's the purpose of the turn 5 save?

    Is a city growing to size three and rioting so unexpected? If we end up with conflicting instructions - instruction based on the *will of the people* - then the DP decides to either stop play and try to get things rectified in the forums or forges on and we live with our stupid mistake. If the DP forges on enough we should learn to stop making such dumb errors, shouldn't we?
 
Donsig, so your saying that you expect our leaders not only to think of every possibly circumstance (which is nearly impossible), but also to predict the future? Also, note that in #1 lit was acquired unexpected, so if we were not planning on getting lit for another 20 some-odd turns, so of course.. the govonor did not plan on building it any time soon, but an unexpected trade was made in the middle of a Turnchat that acquired lit earlier than planned, tell me, why is it unfair to change it? Do you expect the govonor to know we would get lit 20 turns before we were suppose to?
 
Originally posted by Strider
This new system is abou of bullcrap and it isn't effective at all. Why was it changed? Because some people decided that they wanted more power. We need to bring back the system of Spot Votes during T/C's. Sure it leave's some people out, BUT it gets the general populations consent on a matter, and most of the time a spot vote will end up the same way as a normal poll in the forum.

Moderator Action: Strider, this is a troll. Consider yourself warned. There are about 10 million ways you could have said that without trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Originally posted by Strider
Donsig, so your saying that you expect our leaders not only to think of every possibly circumstance (which is nearly impossible), but also to predict the future? Also, note that in #1 lit was acquired unexpected, so if we were not planning on getting lit for another 20 some-odd turns, so of course.. the govonor did not plan on building it any time soon, but an unexpected trade was made in the middle of a Turnchat that acquired lit earlier than planned, tell me, why is it unfair to change it? Do you expect the govonor to know we would get lit 20 turns before we were suppose to?

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. ;)
 
Originally posted by Strider


Far from it.... There is still a thousand other differant thing's that your stupid laws prevents. Tell me, why did all of the power within the turnchat be given to one person, instead of the group of citizens present? This gives the President way to much power, instead of the old system, which gave a random group of citizens the power. The system was only changed, because some people said it gave more power to the citizens there, this to me sounds like everyone within this game is power hungry, selfish. Do we not trust eachother anymore? Obviously not, enough anyway to convince some people that it is in THERE best interests to hamper the progress of the DG, just for they get to post, about how they "support or disapprove of this because of this reason," most of the time useless to begin with. Now, this is not a "wonderful" system, it hurts us more than it does good.

  1. It hampers the progress of the game, as govonors can no longer change a queue in mid-chat. IE: We find an unexpected trade and get lit on Turn 2. The Govonor of Berry can not change to a library, because of these "wonderful" rules. Even though the temple is to be completed in one turn.
  2. Give to much power to the president. The Trade minister can not make treaties in the middle of the game, even though the AI's could have researched two more techs, it is still the presidents decision wether to make that trade. (Bad checks & balance's)
  3. The minister of defense can no longer decide to block a settlers progress, by changing his orders in mid-chat. So the warrior he asked to explore during his instructions 7 turns ago has to continue exploring.
    [/list=1]


  1. 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.
 
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. :p
[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. :p
[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)
 
I think one thing we easily forget is that, it's just a game. I've noticed a similarity between here, and the beta testing going on up in the civ3 section. The vets and elites want to cater the game to their own playstyle. Sure the vets and elites might think, "Oh, that city's gonna grow in 7 turns, and this tile needs to be micromanaged so that the settler and warrior meet up at the same time...". But, a newer player who plays on regent or lower might not think that way.

It's not just about "lazy advisors". It's also:

1 - Knowledge of the game. Some might not micromanage as much, or even play on monarch (maybe thinking that, as a whole, the majority will even out). Some players might not even anticipate every move. Take the slider for example. Say a player (VP) didn't know that you could lower the science slider, and said, "Keep the slider at 80% for the entire 10 turns" when the next tech was at turn 5. Because of the rules, the VP can't change the lux slider. The chat would have to stop, and wait another 4 days just to change 1 thing. This leads into the slippery slopes of voting on every action.

2. Time Constraints - Not everyone has 10 hours to read the forum, check the game, create polls, etc.. Sure, you can say, "Well, then don't play the game". That's excluding players (and borders being against the forum rules -- elitism "Only those who know what we're doing can play"). Take this turnchat for example. Octavian_X didn't have the full time to post specific instructions (only general if this, if that) because he had school, and by the time he got home, it would've been too late to even edit the post.
 
My concern is and it is a valid one is that if we start allowing decisions to be made in the turn chat then the emphasis will slip away from the forum. Leaders wont bother so much with their posting because they know they can deal with it in the Turnchat. Not everyone can attend the TC but everyone can at some stage read the forums.

When I joined the game was rather elitist with lots of complaints about newbies not knowing what they are doing and comments that only vets should be Leaders. With a lot of effort from people there have been many new people joining the game and staying. The game should be as accessible as possible and keeping all the decisions in the forum ensures that it remains so. Being a Leader is hard work. It should not be regarded as just an ego trip. Being a Leader should be hard work. It is about communicating to a large number of people and listening to their ideas not just doing as you please.

Also and more imporantly it is just a game and should be fun. If we make bad or incorrect decisions it does not really matter. We should not moan and complain about whose fault it is but just get on with playing it. The demogame is supposed to bring people together. In the latter stages of DG3 co-operation was everywhere. There was no fighting or PIs. We all got along and had fun. DG4 should be no different.
 
Peri, I can tell you right now that this won't be the end of this controversy.

There really does need to be some leniancy. This idea that total control should be excercised by the forums can only be achieved if we only played one turn at a time.

[sarcasm]If we really do want every single decision made in the forum, why don't we just do away with the mechanism of the turn chat altogether? If no decisions nor discussion of value can take place in a turn chat, why burden the President with this obviously outdated tool? This entire process can be streamlined if the President just reports back to us when we can actually make decisions that are 'legal.'[/sarcasm]
 
Thank you Peri! Is it really that big a deal that a city rioted? NO, it is not. It is a big deal when the President has to worry more about citizen complaints than about playing the save. A single phrase in the slider instructions saying the dp is free to temporarily raise the luxury rate to avoid rioting in our cities or the DP is free to lower the research rate in order to maximize our gold surplus as long as said reduction does not increase research time or something similar would save lots of arguements. Unfortunately it has been difficult enough to get our Senate to even make any formal slider instruction proposals!

Civ III has been out for well over two years now and we're on DG number 4. This is not rocket science people!
 
This is not rocket science people!

Hey,...that's my line, donsig. :)

And I could have sworn it was you threatening CC's at the t/c, donsig. ;)

Peri, is correct. Just as donsig says. A simple forethought by our elected Leaders could lead to a well written Instruction (posted on time) that could allow the President some elbow room when playing the save. If the Leaders write in that certain freedoms are a given, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I would like to say more, but...of course there are 4 Judicial Reviews on the slate right now and 1 maybe two touch on this subject matter.

In 5 days I can say whatever the hell I want! :lol: :nya:
 
Originally posted by Octavian X


There really does need to be some leniancy.

That right. There does and donsig puts it well. A well written instruction gives the President authority to act with discretion in the best interests of Fanatica. The President should feel free to listen to advice from people in the TC but should be under no obligation to follow it. The point I am trying to make is that everyone can read in the Instruction Thread that the DP will act according to certain guidelines and knows in advance what the DP may or may not do. If decisions are made in the TC then only those who attend have a chance to influence events. Everyone else only finds out what happened by reading the chat log. As a result those attending the chat could take Fanatica in a direction that most oppose. This is why the rules were re written.
 
Top Bottom