[DG2] Offices Poll

[DaveShack]

We also all know the trouble with turn chats is they take away from the decision making abilities (or contributions) of citizens who do not (or cannot) attend said turn chats.

But it's not true that turn chats take away from the contributions of people who aren't at the chat. Everyone has the right, and IMO the obligation, to make their views known before the play session starts. That input must be considered, and takes precedence, over what happens during the chat. You often speak about being able to predict what will happen and plan accordingly. Take one of your hot button issues, trades conducted during a chat. All you have to do to prevent ad-hoc decision making on trades is to use your voice before the session to demand a play stoppage if any opportunities come up, and poll it if you must to make it stick. You might be stopping the game for a no-brainer decision, but you've always had this right.

I will if you will. Are you willing to accept a ruleset that allows private polls and offline game play sessions (as well as public polls and turn chats)?

Umm, the current ruleset allows private polls and offline sessions. The new ruleset will follow the needs of the majority.

If you really want to counteract the decline of demogame fun then do something to ensure people can participate fully in the decision making process. The best way I see of doing that is to return to the original idea of the demogame as a forum based game. (Which I don't really see as an extreme position.) Another way is to ensure citizens (as a group) have the final say in game play desicions. (Again, something I don't see as an extreme position.)

But it is a forum based game. All decisions made in the forum must be followed. The citizens do have the final say in game play decisions. It has never been otherwise.

Some examples of extreme positions as I see it:

1. Allowing any official to make any decision during a chat
2. Never allowing any official, or the citizens, to make any decision during a chat
3. Allowing officials to make decisions without citizen input
4. Forcing officials to poll every decision, no matter how small

#1 can result in missing out on some great debates, the stuff that good demogames are made of. I've never advocated unlimited decisions during the chat.

#2 can result in a series of very short sessions, with almost nothing to discuss or poll between them. I've seen this happen, and it was very painful. We'd play one turn, meet someone new, and have to stop because there was a trade available that 99% of solo players would make, but with no ability to amend instructions for obvious events, a stoppage is required. Then the people look at it and say "why are we even discussing this, just play on!"

#3 is how we usually ran the governor positions, in the early DG's. We have had a couple of power happy folks who tried to run their executive branch offices this way -- they usually don't last.

#4 lost us a lot of really good leadership, as people who wanted their office to mean something realized they were no more than "glorified polling secretaries" We had trouble this game, with a certain veteran player (not you in this case) slapping around a newcomer Secretary of War and requiring that every detail of a war plan should be polled.

What should we do? Don't take either extreme #1 or #2 -- allow play to continue for obvious gotta-do type decisions, and don't put 100% of the burden on the DP -- those extra eyes and opinions really mean a lot for DP's like me who are good enough players to follow instructions but not good enough to win GOTMs. Also allow some input for the true bolt-out-of-the-blue popup questions. Don't take extreme #3 or #4, find a balance between officials having to poll everytime they want to pass gas, and the ones who think of their offices as inviolate.

If you insist on calling my positions extreme then so be it.

Just the ones which feature "never" or "always". And the ones which require long 4 or more day durations. Remember, many of our citizens lose interest if nothing happens for more than a day or two.

 

[Falcon02]

First, just incase there's any confusion, I do not advocate the "banning" of offline sessions. I see valid reasons for offline sessions, my concern is the "banning" of online sessions.

I have yet to be convinced that there are good enough reasons for "banning" online sessions.

Yes, online sessions are not flawless, but neither are offline sessions. The problems with online sessions can be solved with regulation.

Problems with Offline Sessions

1.) Decisions made in Turnchat, circumventing the forums.

In the end this should in practice only be the DP seeking advice of those in attendance. Nothing in the turnchat should be legally binding, unless it is something that's already been established in the forums. The DP has the right to ignore or follow any advice he recieves from a chat.

I would like to put forward, what is the issue with a DP looking for some additional input before taking an action. Any undefined decisions are still up to the DP. And what is the difference between a DP going to a Demogame chatroom for opinions or asking a RL friend in an offline session? The only difference I really see, is that those in the Demogame chatroom have a greater familiarity with the game. As such they can point out a decision in the forums the DP might have missed which addresses the very problem the DP is asking about.

2.) Laziness in Posting Instructions / In-chat Instructions

Enact and enforce requirements on posting instructions. In fact, how about this if an official is unable to post instructions in time they aren't allowed voice privilages in any turnchat. One time violations should not result in punishment (if the official is otherwise AWOL aswell) since sometimes RL gets in the way of people. However, someone who makes a habit of it, or proves they are available to post, but doesn't post instructions themselves or make arrangements should be punished.

Now on "quality" of the instruction post is harder to enforce, it's hard to determine if a person just missed something or being lazy and vague (with or without intent to give instructions in a chat session). You shouldn't really punish someone for a "failure of imagination" but should be punished for laziness. This would be helped by offline sessions (since instructions will be given later).

Of course even so...

I don't care if 90% (or 99%) of the posted orders are vague (or if an official fails to post orders). We have a DP to there to make any needed decisions.

General Arguments against Turnchats

1.) Removing turnchats "adds" to Citizen's rights and participation.

I don't see how eliminating turnchats "adds" anything. The forum stays the same, forum polls are still the same. So long as nothing in turnchats are concidered legally binding and instructions are posted properly no rights are violated. Turnchats are to allow for additional citizen participation, a log of events, the ability to point out forum decisions to the DP they might have missed. All these ADD to the rights of citizens, particularly those in the forums by adding an additional check on the DP.

If the turnchat rules I've mentioned before are used those who can attend should not have additional "power" over the game. All the power still resides with the DP who has been entrusted with the save and the forums, which the DP must base his/her actions on. No different from with offline sessions, except the DP has the ability to get some realtime feedback.

Why won't I give Offline sessions a chance?
I am giving offline sessions a chance, I think offline sessions are not by themselves a bad thing. But I think online sessions should be maintained given their benefits and opertunities for participation.

On the subject of "steady pace"...
Are your proposing daily game sessions? If so how does this increase forum rights as not everyone has time to review the decisions. I think we should stick with 1-2 play sessions a week, of approx. 10-20 turns.

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us? Or that we rush decisions in the forums so that people in the forums who can not check EVERY day will not be able to voice their opinion on an issue?

I might be able to accept "X turns per week" as a general rule with exceptions, but "no matter what" seems a bit harsh, and could help to reduce citizens rights rather then preserve them... That at the very least is my fear.

 

[DaveShack]

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us?

Ironically, there was a historic incident where someone wanted to make a point of "no decisions / advice during chat". That DP continued a chat the full 10 turns despite having a "predictable" war declared against us, and while the military and foreign affairs advisors were there in the chat demanding he stop.

To be fair on the subject, I should also mention that another veteran DP caused a much more recent incident by proceeding with trades which were different than the people had approved. That player did two more things wrong, by also playing the game with different file versions which changed how it behaved and by failing to stop when things didn't match up.

History and irony aside, here's what I think the "regular play session" idea means. Instead of planning for 10 turns in advance and playing, planning for 10 and playing, which makes it harder to predict what will happen out at the end of those turns, use a smaller interval. Plan for 6 turns play the 1st 2-3. Update the plan out to a 6 turn window, play another 2-3 -- or even the simpler plan for 3 and play, repeat until done.

The advantage of this suggestion is that people would be forced to get off the fence and decide what they want, and do that continuously. This is a proposal from someone who plans to be here somewhat intermittently to begin with, which in itself is quite remarkable since you would normally expect such a person to want all decisions delayed until he has a chance to see them.

This proposal does address one of the reasons that people leave. I need to come back and explain that in a bit, gotta take one of the kids to the doctor.

 

[DaveShack]

Hmm, why are we having a discussion here anyway?

I think I'll go make a new thread.

Which can now be found here.

 

[donsig]

On the subject of "steady pace"...
Are your proposing daily game sessions? If so how does this increase forum rights as not everyone has time to review the decisions. I think we should stick with 1-2 play sessions a week, of approx. 10-20 turns.

By "... no matter what", are you proposing we not stop the session if another civ declares war on us? Or that we rush decisions in the forums so that people in the forums who can not check EVERY day will not be able to voice their opinion on an issue?

I might be able to accept "X turns per week" as a general rule with exceptions, but "no matter what" seems a bit harsh, and could help to reduce citizens rights rather then preserve them... That at the very least is my fear.

I'm proposing we play two turns per day. That's 14 turns per week and about 60 turns per term (depending on the number of days per month). This is not much different than X turns per weeks.

Yes, no matter what means do not stop even if war is declared on us. Two turns will not destroy our chances of winning a game. Think of the possibilites. By having a steady pace we'd have to revise our way of posting game play instructions and we have to devise new (and hopefully better) ways of letting the DP know what to do. Since the pace is steady we'd be dealing with more standing and conditional orders to be sure but we'd just have to find a way to streamline and simplify them. That in itself may focus our planning energies where most needed.

We already have the concept of a pool of DPs so playing two turns a day should be doable since the workload can be split up. Having to play only two turns may encourage more people to become DPs. Chats could still be held and they'd be reasonable in length since only two turns were being played.

No I doubt anyone could attend every chat or post orders everyday. This is no reason to toss this idea out. Think of the possibilites. What if we elected leaders and then let them assemble their own team that would be responsible for posting gameplay instructions for their department? Not only would this allow elected official to lead their own team (and the general population) it would allow for more citizens to enter government service without having to get elected. I'm sure some people entering this way would soon decide to run for bigger office. Think of the possibilites.

As for banning either offline or online sessions, let's not ban either and allow the DP to choose. If the people do not want a DP who will conduct offline sessions then they should not vote for him or her. Let the people decide with their votes during the game and not close these doors with the ruleset.

Ironically, there was a historic incident where someone wanted to make a point of "no decisions / advice during chat". That DP continued a chat the full 10 turns despite having a "predictable" war declared against us, and while the military and foreign affairs advisors were there in the chat demanding he stop.

If you are referring to the Great Aztec War of DG III then you are mistaken in the motives behind that historic incident. The president at the time thought a war with the Aztecs would not only be beneficial but in keeping with the WotP. As for the demands to stop, another historic event, the Medicineman Incident (DG I) established that the (then) statutory ten turn game play session could only be terminated by the DP's disctretion. I think the game play schedule I proposed above would not only alleviate these kinds of incidences it would help keep interest in the game high since something new happens everyday, while at the same time too much can't happen to cause serious problems.

Think of the possibilites.

 

[Falcon02]

Honestly Donsig..... I've got my concerns... but I think I'd be willing to give it a try...

My biggest concern is allowing time for polls, at the same time, 2 turns is hardly a lot of turns, so theoretically MOST polls could span gaming sessions. I also agree this wouldn't be practical without the DP pool, and would likely require a Leader + 1 or 2 deputies per department.

I still am also concerned about the start of a major war, particularly when we suddenly have troops bearing down on us that we did not see before causing an immediate threat to our territory. And while this can be taken care of by a competent DP, it feels like the type of decision that would best be served in the forums.

Another major concern is it turning into a SG with "official" advisers. It has the potential to switch power from the forums to the DP to a large degree, particularly with the lack of time allowed for discussing decisions in the forums.

But in general, it's an interesting idea, and I'm not opposed to trying it.

 

[Black_Hole]

That's an idea that I think is worth a try...
It is also more realistic, if you are ruling a real civilization you can't call timeout if suddenly troops are converging around your borders to ask the legislature what to do

One idea this brings up (in my head) is slightly changing the role of initiaitves...
They should be lasting decisions, like once one is enacted it is in effect until repealed. Like an example would be: "There can be no more than 3 units per city unless the nation is in a state of war"... These wouldn't be stored in the Constitution of Code of Laws, but we could have a thread of current initiatives

 

[DaveShack]

Let's continue the discussion on the continuous play option in the thread created for that purpose.