[DG2] Chat Matters

[Falcon02]

On a side note, I added my Turnchat draft on the Google Docs, with everyone who's currently a collaborator on the other documents as a collaborator for the Turnchat rules.

 

[GenMarshall]

I agree, I feel like a "banning of turnchats" would be a sad day for the DG indeed.....

I would agree to this. Its not the demogame without the turnchats.

 

[Falcon02]

I posted a poll on Turnchats

7 days to vote, please vote now.

In the mean time, I'd appreciate more feedback on my proposed Turnchat guidelines, if anyone has anything to comment about it.

 

[Falcon02]

Updated Turnchat thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195817

 

[Falcon02]

I present an updated version for review

Turn Chats

Turnchats are sessions held in the Demogame chatroom where the Designated Player plays the save. While playing the DP will report on events and his actions as they play out. Turnchats should be no longer then 15 turns (unless otherwise directed in the forums)

Operators
CFC Moderators shall have Operator privileges in the Demogame Chat room.

The President will also be given Operator privileges while other Elected officials will be given Half-Op privileges to help enforce order in the Chat Room.

Unless deemed necessary by chatroom operators to enforce order in the chatroom, citizens who attend the turnchat will be allowed to voice their opinions as the game plays out.

In Chat Actions/Decisions
Actions during the turnchat MAY NOT violate any forum decision/poll.

Any major events shall result in the end of the turnchat unless superceded by a decision in the forums. A major event is any large change from the normal during a turnchat, such as a declaration of war.

The DP can also call to stop the game and return to the forums if he feels there are significant advantages to doing so, such as numerous trade opertunities are available without proper forum instructions.

Decisions can be made during the turn chat may only regard minor details of play, such as which specific unit in a stack to use to attack a city, first, second, etc. If anything more major is required discussion shall return to the forums for further review.


Turnchat Instructions
Turnchat Instructions most be posted in the forums at least 24 hours before a Turnchat to allow some public review. Officials MAY NOT post vague instructions with the intent of giving them during the turn chat. Instructions must be detailed enough that should the official be absent the DP would be able to play through the save without major problems.

It is the Secretary's responcibility to announce if they are unable to post Instructions and it is the Deputy's responcibility to post when the Secretary is unable to. If neither is able to post instructions, it is their responcibility to designate someone else who can post instructions on their behalf.

The President should post the Turnchat thread about 4 days before the planned turnchat to give leaders a place to post instructions and to announce the time of the turnchat.

Public Turnchat Votes
Turnchat Votes - These votes are purely informational, requested by the DP to help them make the Uninteruptable/Minor decisions necessary during a chat. These votes are NOT legally binding as they do not represent the will of the citizenry as a whole. The DP may disregard the result of any vote if they choose, or if the result clashes with decisions made in the forums.

Examples of Uninterpretable/Minor Decisions include

- An in game event which forces the DP to make unexpected choice before continuing. -- Uninteruptable
- Specific Unit attack order (ie. which unit in a stack should be used to attack first, second, third, based on in-game battle results)
- Exploration pattern of units exploring the map
- Responding to minor military incursions of enemy countries during time of war. (ie. a few units bypassing our main force that needs to be eliminated)
​

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Where do you get this line?

Turnchats should be no longer then 15 turns (unless otherwise directed in the forums)

I don't think we decided on that anywhere...

I'll revise that article for clarity's sake (as well as add technical information about joining, connecting, etc.) once we fully decide on the role of TCs.

 

[Falcon02]

I arbitrarily picked 15 turns, figured it's probably gonna be something between 10 to 20.

I'm just trying to get some more planning progress down so we know what we want to do.

Optional or not, I figure most of the points are valid.

There are two things which I feel are up for question, the part of decisions that can be made (ie. inchat polls, etc.), and a clause about when a turnchat is done.

The rest are minor things, like number of turns for a play session, timing of instructions, Operator privileges, etc.

 

[DaveShack]

Instead of trying to nail the language, what about a simple approach?

• The Designated Player is tasked with playing the game, following instructions posted in an instruction thread.
• Play must be stopped when the predetermined criteria for stopping play are met, as stated in the instruction thread.
• The DP is permitted to decide any in-game issue for which there are insufficient or no instructions, using any available information.
• The DP must make a detailed report of in-game actions and their results. Such a report may be via an interactive chat or in a post-session report.

That's all we really need. It's easy to understand, and having few details makes legal difficulties unlikely, or at least less likely.

 

[Falcon02]

Not bad, but that just covers play sessions not Turnchats themselves

That's all we really need. It's easy to understand, and having few details makes legal difficulties unlikely, or at least less likely.

And unfortunately that legal bridge goes both ways...

Few details -> items up for question -> Citizen feels cheated cause he reads it differently -> Judicial reviews analyzing vague text.

Best to get a nice middle ground I think.

 

[dutchfire]

I am with Falcon on this one.

 

[DaveShack]

Not bad, but that just covers play sessions not Turnchats themselves

• The DP must make a detailed report of in-game actions and their results. Such a report may be via an interactive chat or in a post-session report.

The bolded part is about turnchats. There is another piece of information vital to turnchats in my proposal but I prefer not to draw attention to it.

And unfortunately that legal bridge goes both ways...

Few details -> items up for question -> Citizen feels cheated cause he reads it differently -> Judicial reviews analyzing vague text.

Do you have a hypothetical situation in mind? I'd like to illustrate how difficult it is to "read it differently" when stated this way.

 

[Falcon02]

1.) DP decides to hold a turnchat poll to get an idea of what people in attendance are thinking about a certain decision. DP now can be in trouble no matter what he does. He follows the chat poll and people complain it's unconstitutional because it's not "permitted" by the constitution and is unfair since only some people are in attendance. He decides it best to go against the inchat poll since it's just informational and doesn't reflect everyone. However, an investigation ensues about the DP "violating the will of the people" since he went against a poll decision. This last one happened to Donsig I believe, because to some such a poll counts as "instruction."

2.) Player gets "one more turn syndrome" and ends up playing farther then expected (ie. 50 turns). So long as he followed posted instructions he's technically okay, because whatever came into question later on he was "charged with deciding"

3.) Chaos in the demogame chatroom requires moderation to ensure order, people get devoiced, etc. People complain their rights have been violated because the constitution does not permit officials to "ignore the will of the people".

4.) DP encounters a "major event" such as someone declaring war on us without taking it to the forums, by your wording, he might have done nothing wrong. Just because the Military Leader/Secretary forgot to post the clarifier "stop the game if someone declares war on us" since it's assumed or if the Military leader didn't get to posting instructions in time. The DP was just going with his best judgment "with insufficient or no instructions."

I could probably continue to go on given time, but I hope my point is made, you leave stuff open for interpretation, you allow stuff to be interpreted incorrectly.

The more detailed you make it the more stringent you risk making it, potentially allowing for minor violations to get thrown out of proportion or driving people off who are confused by the long documentation. However, the less it's open for interpretation.

The less detailed you make it you risk making it so relaxed people misinterpret the intent or can get away with major offenses because it's not explicitly denied in the constitution. However, it is easier to read and allows for a more relaxed gameplay.

This is why we need to be careful when developing this ruleset, I feel make it detailed, but try to make it relaxed at the same time.

 

[ravensfire]

I feel make it detailed, but try to make it relaxed at the same time.

This is going to sound bad, and truly isn't intended to, but ...

I'm going to enjoy seeing how that balance is made in this ruleset. It's been something I've struggled with in ever ruleset I've been a part of, and been vilified by someone upset with that balance. It's an easy thing to say, and extraordinarily difficult to actually accomplish.

With luck, you (being all the major writers of the ruleset), will avoid the curse of past ruleset (angering someone to the point they try to destroy it), and get a good balance put together. You'll need to bury your ego, because you will see rules abused and ridiculed. There is a great deal of satisfaction when you see the result of the ratification poll overwhelming in support - I hope you all get to enjoy that!

Here's my pledge - regardless of my satisfaction level with the ruleset, you'll not see me trying to change the major aspects of the rules, whining about the things I don't like or waxing eloquent about the "better times of the past", but rather trying to enjoy things as written, in the present.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

Yeah I understand it's hard to get that balance, since the two work against each other.

Honestly in previous demogames I was disinterested in such policy, constitutional discussions. I just wanted to play.

My participation this time round is to try to help things get going, and try my best to protect what I see as an essential part of the demogame, the turnchats.

 

[DaveShack]

Here's my pledge - regardless of my satisfaction level with the ruleset, you'll not see me trying to change the major aspects of the rules, whining about the things I don't like or waxing eloquent about the "better times of the past", but rather trying to enjoy things as written, in the present.

-- Ravensfire

Woohoo, someone caught on!
One down, 50 to go if we're lucky!

 

[Cyc]

Do you have a hypothetical situation in mind? I'd like to illustrate how difficult it is to "read it differently" when stated this way.

Not that this example has anything to do with Turnchats, but it is a good example of "someone reading it differently". Only in this case, the law is stately plainly enough, yet you still bent it to suit your needs and wants.

Take a look!

 

[DaveShack]

Not that this example has anything to do with Turnchats, but it is a good example of "someone reading it differently". Only in this case, the law is stately plainly enough, yet you still bent it to suit your needs and wants.

Take a look!

No, that law was very clearly stated and I interpreted it 100% correctly. Others chose to read in things which weren't there.

And it is a mischaracterization to say my needs and wants had anything to do with it. The issue was and still is unnecessary delays. Delays are not fun. Stopping sessions early to make no-brainer decisions isn't fun, especially when you also have to wait another 3 days to play the next session because of people who don't visit the forum any more often than that.

Try another example which was not clear.