Falcon02
General
I think historically the chain of command has worked quite well, I say we return to it.
[DG2]Offices
- Thread starter dutchfire
- Start date
Why don't we just make it as such:
The DP pool consists of all elected officials (in some order, like the Chain of Command). If an official wants to/can do a turnchat, then he becomes a DP for one turnchat. If not, the DP responsibility for the next turnchat simply goes to the next in the chian.
The DP pool consists of all elected officials (in some order, like the Chain of Command). If an official wants to/can do a turnchat, then he becomes a DP for one turnchat. If not, the DP responsibility for the next turnchat simply goes to the next in the chian.
Falcon02
General
So, you saying it would rotate around the Officials or only go down the line if those higher up are unavailable?
ice2k4
Emperor
Or we can do something like this.
Schedule turn chats in advance, so we turn chats aren't delayed and they move at a pace that we like.
In the turn chat thread, any elected official can post if they can play it at that time. If two or more people insist upon playing it, we will go to a set chain of command. If the citizens don't feel one of the officials should play it they may ask to exclude him from playing the saves, or he can simply step down and never ask to play them.
This way, the game moves at a set pace, and won't slow down.
We will have a variety of people playing the save.
There is a certain chain of command.
And disagreeing citizens may vote to exclude a certain official form playing.
I really see no flaw in this system.
Schedule turn chats in advance, so we turn chats aren't delayed and they move at a pace that we like.
In the turn chat thread, any elected official can post if they can play it at that time. If two or more people insist upon playing it, we will go to a set chain of command. If the citizens don't feel one of the officials should play it they may ask to exclude him from playing the saves, or he can simply step down and never ask to play them.
This way, the game moves at a set pace, and won't slow down.
We will have a variety of people playing the save.
There is a certain chain of command.
And disagreeing citizens may vote to exclude a certain official form playing.
I really see no flaw in this system.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
The DP Pool needs to be accountable to the people, especially if you are planning to let them make decisions in chat. The approval for DP Pool participants during the election cycle should be 60%. Lastly, the President has the right to play all turns if they so choose, with the DP Pool available for backup if needed.
Falcon02
General
I personally feel the DP pool should be abolished, Chain of Command (CoC) allows only people voted in by the people to be able to play turn chats. I don't like the concept of the DP pool, at least with the CoC you got a constant order of play priority, and all officials are checked via elections.
Also, as DZ seems to favor anyway, the President can play ever turn a term freely so long as he's available.
Also, as DZ seems to favor anyway, the President can play ever turn a term freely so long as he's available.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Let's put this to a poll then - retain the DP pool, use only the CoC, or go with a mix of the two (Pres chooses to play, or use the DP).
The DP Pool worked for my main goal when I proposed it - it allowed people that did not hold (and in some cases did not want to hold) to actively participate in the game as a player. Early in the DG when we had high levels of participation, we had a good sized pool. That's a good thing - the system was working.
Why the hate? What about the DP Pool wasn't working in your view?
-- Ravensfire
The DP Pool worked for my main goal when I proposed it - it allowed people that did not hold (and in some cases did not want to hold) to actively participate in the game as a player. Early in the DG when we had high levels of participation, we had a good sized pool. That's a good thing - the system was working.
Why the hate? What about the DP Pool wasn't working in your view?
-- Ravensfire
Falcon02
General
Well, in all honesty, I did not witness the implementation of the DP Pool, especially in it's "golden era." My objections to it are based on the fact that CoC worked very well before, and I see various potential problems with an open DP Pool which leaves things open for potential abuse and confusion.
So I can't say what "wasn't working," but I can say what concerns me about it.
ice2k4
Emperor
Either way I still would like to go back to my idea posted above. Whatever you decide, is it possible that we can schedule turn chats well in advance (at the beginning of the term) so we can control the pace of the game. This way if you have a CoC, the President can plan more properly and if something comes up where he can't make it, the CoC gets it to a person who can make it. Or if we do a DP, the DP's do not have to go in turn and can work it out where someone will be able to play.
I think planning turn chats right after finishing one really slows down the game and does not allow us to effectively control the pace. If some kind of discussion comes up where we need more time, of course we could delay, but for the majority, the game would be controlled. You must remember one of the main problems we had was the pace of the game.
Edit: Realized this should go in the chat matters thread. If you would like to discuss this post, please post in the [DG2] Chat Matters Thread.
I think planning turn chats right after finishing one really slows down the game and does not allow us to effectively control the pace. If some kind of discussion comes up where we need more time, of course we could delay, but for the majority, the game would be controlled. You must remember one of the main problems we had was the pace of the game.
Edit: Realized this should go in the chat matters thread. If you would like to discuss this post, please post in the [DG2] Chat Matters Thread.
Another reason for using a DP pool is the ability to spread the play session times around. If I'm President and we don't have a mechanism to assign others the DP responsibility, chats are all going to be at 10pm or 11pm MST GMT-7, where if others are allowed to DP then we can get a variety.
Is there any disagreement with the President having the responsibility to get play sessions scheduled and arrange someone to play them? If we can agree on that, then the remaining question is how others (if any) are selected to play.
Also, ice's idea is a good one, except for the possibility that events cause us to take longer than the predetermined number of days to make the next set of decisions. What can we do with the offices to ensure that the planning process goes on if someone isn't getting their part done? Deputies are one answer, designated backups are another. Another option is to support citizens who fill in the gaps when there is a need. Anything else?
Is there any disagreement with the President having the responsibility to get play sessions scheduled and arrange someone to play them? If we can agree on that, then the remaining question is how others (if any) are selected to play.
Also, ice's idea is a good one, except for the possibility that events cause us to take longer than the predetermined number of days to make the next set of decisions. What can we do with the offices to ensure that the planning process goes on if someone isn't getting their part done? Deputies are one answer, designated backups are another. Another option is to support citizens who fill in the gaps when there is a need. Anything else?
Falcon02
General
Agreed, It's the President's responcibility to schedule and play (arrange for someone else to play) the sessions. However, whether CoC or DP Pool it should just be a matter of highest person on the list who is able to play and in attendance. Deciding the most likely person that will be ahead of time may save time during the turnchat, but a person shouldn't be feel like he's "Forced" to play just cause he's was selected. Even if they agree to it, things in real life interfere sometimes, such as running late at work, and you don't have the chance to give the forums/chatroom a heads up to your absence. We should have leway for people in attendance to at some point decide "okay, let's stop waiting and get this thing started, who's top of the list?" Say 10 minutes after the scheduled chat the highest ranking person starts up the game.
Also on another (more on topic) note, here's the CoC as I see it based on GA's offices
Only one slight change, making Domestic second in command and Defense third. The reason why I feel Domestic goes above Defense is I still sorta have a DG1 view of Domestic organizing the Governors and thus "manager" of queues and such with a more of a "claim" to playing the save. Other then that I think that about covers it.
Sure, a designated play order is fine. Even better if that order can be set on a per chat basis, so the same people aren't on the top of the list for the whole month.
If we go with an office based CoC, I'd like to build in a way to avoid a certain situation which came up this game. Certain people who shall remain nameless but are often testing new versions of the game should be encouraged to hold offices, but restricted from playing the save while distracted by said new versions of the game.
Edit: forgot to also say, domestic should play above military in times of peace, but it is really handy to have military be the DP in times of war.
If we go with an office based CoC, I'd like to build in a way to avoid a certain situation which came up this game. Certain people who shall remain nameless but are often testing new versions of the game should be encouraged to hold offices, but restricted from playing the save while distracted by said new versions of the game.
Edit: forgot to also say, domestic should play above military in times of peace, but it is really handy to have military be the DP in times of war.
Who?Sure, a designated play order is fine. Even better if that order can be set on a per chat basis, so the same people aren't on the top of the list for the whole month.
If we go with an office based CoC, I'd like to build in a way to avoid a certain situation which came up this game. Certain people who shall remain nameless but are often testing new versions of the game should be encouraged to hold offices, but restricted from playing the save while distracted by said new versions of the game.
Just kidding!
I would have to agree here - really useful. Didn't we have something like this in the earlier Civ3 DGs, where the military leader could change build queues set by governors in times of war?
Falcon02
General
DG1 and 2 I think Military Leader could change a build queue if the region had active enemy units inside it's territory (or something like that).
But for the most part it wasn't necessary, Governors were pretty cooperative about military units. I did get "called out on it once" where I requested one military unit in the queue be replaced with another during the chat. I was "sued" and got out on that technicality because there were enemy units in the territory at the time. Felt like a hallow victory, I felt I was in the right, but didn't win because "I was right."
Now that you bring that up, I kinda feel regardless though, the Military leader at the very least should be able to change one military item in the queue to another (assuming the impact on later queue items isn't majorly effected).
On another note... try to avoid DP's who get called to help his parents with a "quick" errand which takes 45 mins. to an hour....
But for the most part it wasn't necessary, Governors were pretty cooperative about military units. I did get "called out on it once" where I requested one military unit in the queue be replaced with another during the chat. I was "sued" and got out on that technicality because there were enemy units in the territory at the time. Felt like a hallow victory, I felt I was in the right, but didn't win because "I was right."
Now that you bring that up, I kinda feel regardless though, the Military leader at the very least should be able to change one military item in the queue to another (assuming the impact on later queue items isn't majorly effected).
On another note... try to avoid DP's who get called to help his parents with a "quick" errand which takes 45 mins. to an hour....
ice2k4
Emperor
In times of war I think that the military adviser should automatically be at the top of the CoC.
Falcon02
General
Personally I feel the President should always have priority, though I can understand Military being second during time of war.
Though In the end, when I was Military leader I tended to prefer to not play the save. Going through it turn by turn via text in the turn chat sometimes helps one to take a step back and put more deep thought into your actions. Instead of going ahead and doing what first comes to mind and realizing you screwed up and would have realized the error if you'd just thought about it a bit more.
Though In the end, when I was Military leader I tended to prefer to not play the save. Going through it turn by turn via text in the turn chat sometimes helps one to take a step back and put more deep thought into your actions. Instead of going ahead and doing what first comes to mind and realizing you screwed up and would have realized the error if you'd just thought about it a bit more.
Falcon02
General
Honestly, that's how the whole CoC works in my mind, no one is "obligated to play" they can always pass on playing the save.
ice2k4
Emperor
I was assuming this as well when I wrote my previous statement.
Anyone interested in putting up a poll to settle some of the issues (DP Pool, CoC, deputies, length of terms, etc.) that need to be finalized?
Similar threads
