[DG2] Offline Chat Sessions

[Falcon02]

Given the obvious vagueness of the original Chat Polls, let's get to the details.

Now the question is, when should it be appropriate to have an offline session? In order to make sure the poll is complete we need to have all the options people want upfront. The poll will be multiple-choice, given the nature of the options.

So here's my "initial" option list

- President has the perogative to have an offline session
- DP has the perogative to have an offline session
(assuming DP is not neccisarily the President)
- When only 1 turn will be played
- Never

 

[Falcon02]

I wanted to add another option should we have a DP rotation and the DP in the rotation was simply unable to support a Turnchat session, (ie. ravensfire who can't run a chat program and Civ IV at the same time).

But I fear confusion with the DP option, since the two could be concidered fairly simular, just a difference of DP need vs. DP's preference.

 

[GenMarshall]

(ie. ravensfire who can't run a chat program and Civ IV at the same time)

Just incase I missed it. Is it a case where he cant alt-tab between the two programs while CivIV is in full screen? Or is it just a memory issue?

But I fear confusion with the DP option, since the two could be concidered fairly simular, just a difference of DP need vs. DP's preference.

My main fear with an offline (closed) chat session is that the DP would go widly off on his or her own and play beyond the traditional 10 turns as well as go rouge (waging a war with out stopping, etc)

 

[DaveShack]

One thing to keep in mind is that later patches reduced memory utilization and the impact of task switching. During the pregame for DG1 I had extreme problems with my machine, where each task switch was taking a minute or so. On the current patch I can play and chat with hardly any trouble, and that's at 512MB. Potential DP's are advised to try it before saying it's not possible. Another possibility is lack of access to a continuous connection, for which there is obviously no cure.

Machine / performance problems aside, it is also quite reasonable to say one can't play and chat at the same time. I might expect some of the same people to have difficulty with providing a detailed record of an offline session. To that I'd say it is potentially fine to play offline if the record is detailed enough, and I probably would prefer to bar the players who can't provide either a chat commentary or a detailed record from being DP at all.

That takes care of the two kinds of players who can't chat while playing, those who physically can't due to performance or connection limitations, and those who logically can't due to skill or style issues.

I see two potential kinds of players who can, but won't chat. I'll start off with my description of the "innocent anti-chatter". It is certainly possible that for some, the chat might cause some kind of mental anguish, or disgust with the shenanigans which often go on (in terms of childish behavior from the chatgoers, not in-game actions), or distrust from family (why have you been talking on the computer with strangers for 3 hours), or be too much of a time committment (aforementioned 3 hours). It can also be a simple personal preference without any other reason and without political undertones.

The other kind of player who won't chat even if they can are the ones who do it for "political" reasons. This type can often be identified by their "over my dead body" reaction to the mere idea of having a chat. Their favorite saying tends to be "it's a forum game, not a chat game". Many of these individuals seem to like the chat when they're actually there, openly giving the DP advice and freely participating in the social aspects of chatting. However they are known for occasionally trying to set a legal trap for the DP by giving advice they know violates posted instructions.

Recommendation on selecting DPs

The people should be choosy about the citizens they allow to be DP.

• The fairly rare "can't keep a good detailed record either online or offline" folks should be rejected on sight.
• Deciding whether to allow the remainder of the "can't chat" folks to be DP is an individual decision which hinges on the voter's perception of the chat. A voter who can't get into the game without a chat, or who otherwise thinks that absense of a chat is damaging, might be justified in denying DP status to candidates who can't chat.
• An extreme "pro-chat political" voter might also vote against any "can't chat" candidate on political grounds.
• Denial of DP duties to those who can chat but won't would almost always be a political decision for a voter. There is no feeling of discrimination in this case because the candidate chooses whether to chat or not.
• Extreme "anti-chat political" voters might vote against "will chat" candidates, for the obvious reason.

Recommendation on valid grounds to not have a chat

• The DP can't chat (either permanently or because of some aspect of this play session such as being away from internet, need to play 1 turn an hour for 10 hours, etc) and the citizens do not object to the offline session by requesting a skip/swap. That bolded portion might be controversial, but I think it is essential. There may be some in-game reason that we very much want this specific session to be online, for example we're going to be doing trading, or celebrating finishing a wonder, or starting or finishing a war. We don't penalize the scheduled DP, but we do switch the play order around so a chatter can run the session.
• The citizens explicitly approve of not having a chat for this play session, for example we know it's likely to be a boring 10 turns. This could be worded in the negative, the citizens don't object to offline.
• The parameters of the session match a pre-determined classification which is specifically listed in the law, for example 0 or 1 turn chats to conduct a trade and determine next trade options.

Notice that "don't wanna" is not listed here. If the DP has a legitimate reason to want this chat to be offline, and the citizens don't object, then offline should be allowed. If the DP can get the citizens to agree to offline without an excuse then it should be allowed. But I don't think freebies should be automatically granted.

 

[GenMarshall]

One thing to keep in mind is that later patches reduced memory utilization and the impact of task switching. During the pregame for DG1 I had extreme problems with my machine, where each task switch was taking a minute or so. On the current patch I can play and chat with hardly any trouble, and that's at 512MB. Potential DP's are advised to try it before saying it's not possible. Another possibility is lack of access to a continuous connection, for which there is obviously no cure.

I had no troubles with my computer switching in and out of Civ4, then again I have set it to run in windowed mode. (Another reason why I had it in Windowed mode was everything looks short and fat in full screen mode with a game that does not support widescreen monitors.)

Recommendation on selecting DPs

The people should be choosy about the citizens they allow to be DP.

• The fairly rare "can't keep a good detailed record either online or offline" folks should be rejected on sight.

• 
  Thats kind of harsh, especially if the candidate in question wishes to improve upon making a good detailed record. Then again, I am a person who forgives other people's mistakes if they are willing to improve themselves.

 

[Falcon02]

I believe Ravensfire said it was a matter of performance, for some reason the two programs conflicted and would not run properly together.

So when it comes to DP Recommendations, I do agree there needs to be control on who plays the save, especially since it seems we're going with a DP pool. I'm not sure quite how we'll enforce that, but apparently it worked well this previous game so hopefully that will continue.

And we can add an option ("require Citizen approval") on the choices.
If the DP's choice is not approved but, citizen approval is that could cover your first option. However it could be confused with Citizen approval required to confirm for a chat which falls into a requirement, when they don't want to allow a DP to arbitarily request approval.

The last one (parameters) is part of what this poll will try to establish. What parameters need to be meet? We can approve that legal parameters need to be meet but people want to make sure that those parameters meet their approval, and that's part of what I want this upcoming poll to cover.

Though given your point on DP approval, we do also need discussion, and a poll on requirements for being allowed into the DP poll.

I would have to say part of it should be current/previous office holder (including governors and low level positions). Since such people have helped to prove their devotion to the game. However, that could be a little too restrictive early in the game, given we want a general DP pool. We'd start out with a small list, and end with a large list.

 

[dutchfire]

One thing to keep in mind is that later patches reduced memory utilization and the impact of task switching. During the pregame for DG1 I had extreme problems with my machine, where each task switch was taking a minute or so. On the current patch I can play and chat with hardly any trouble, and that's at 512MB. Potential DP's are advised to try it before saying it's not possible.

For me, it depends on map size + stage of game. I think I could easily chat and play in the beginning of the game, but I'm not even thinking about playing the last part of the game, in fear of total crashes.

Another possibility is lack of access to a continuous connection, for which there is obviously no cure.

Agreed, though I think it's a fairly small group.

Machine / performance problems aside, it is also quite reasonable to say one can't play and chat at the same time. I might expect some of the same people to have difficulty with providing a detailed record of an offline session. To that I'd say it is potentially fine to play offline if the record is detailed enough, and I probably would prefer to bar the players who can't provide either a chat commentary or a detailed record from being DP at all.

One thing I thought about yesterday: what about using the HOF mod, that has the ability to autolog a lot of things?

That takes care of the two kinds of players who can't chat while playing, those who physically can't due to performance or connection limitations, and those who logically can't due to skill or style issues.

I see two potential kinds of players who can, but won't chat. I'll start off with my description of the "innocent anti-chatter". It is certainly possible that for some, the chat might cause some kind of mental anguish, or disgust with the shenanigans which often go on (in terms of childish behavior from the chatgoers, not in-game actions), or distrust from family (why have you been talking on the computer with strangers for 3 hours), or be too much of a time committment (aforementioned 3 hours). It can also be a simple personal preference without any other reason and without political undertones.

Is there a principal reason not to allow someone to do a 3/4 turn chat trice on one day, instead of one 10 turn chat? Like: TC saturday 16 12.00-13.00 GMT, 16.00-17.00, 20.00-21.00. I wouldn't be opposed to that if it's announced properly.

The people should be choosy about the citizens they allow to be DP.

Quoted for truth, DP's should announce if they want to do it offline/online (and preferably time of playsession) during the nominations. People can then chose for themselves.

 

[DaveShack]

Thats kind of harsh, especially if the candidate in question wishes to improve upon making a good detailed record. Then again, I am a person who forgives other people's mistakes if they are willing to improve themselves.

Yes, it is but only because of the way I said it. That's what comes of thinking through and writing a very comprehensive post while trying to get the 3yo son to stay in his bed. I missed an explanation.

The only way we would know it's someone to avoid would be to first have that person play and not present us with a good game record (either in chat or out), then explain what we want and get a "message received" back, have that person play again, and see no improvement.

BTW in case anyone comes along who doesn't understand the history, the reason we need transcripts is so that citizens who are intermittently active don't get left behind.

 

[DaveShack]

One thing I thought about yesterday: what about using the HOF mod, that has the ability to autolog a lot of things?

Last game I even volunteered to try to modify a mod to add DG relevant details. The issue is with making such a mod mandatory. This should go into its own discussion. Which is now located here.

Is there a principal reason not to allow someone to do a 3/4 turn chat trice on one day, instead of one 10 turn chat? Like: TC saturday 16 12.00-13.00 GMT, 16.00-17.00, 20.00-21.00. I wouldn't be opposed to that if it's announced properly.

I can't think of a counter argument offhand. That might have the effect of increasing the total number of people who can attend, while decreasing the amount of influence any one person might have.

As for why we don't do it that way now, it might have just been that DG's evolved from Succession Games, which have a traditional 10 turn session. My opinion is that in the beginning, a DG was kinda defined as a SG with binding polls, laws, and a chat. However I got in on the 3rd game and thus do not know what the original founders intended.

 

[ice2k4]

Maybe when electing designated players (if that's the case) we should require them to list their playing preferences and constraints, so if you don't want to elect someone who only plays offline you won't vote for him (disclaimer: in no way am I shunning offline sessions, as I do not mind them.)

 

[Falcon02]

Okay here's the polls thus far

Who can play Offline Chat Sessions?
- President has the perogative to have an offline session
- DP has the perogative to have an offline session
(ie. no restrictive conditions)
- General requirement for Citizen approval (Forum Poll)
- When only 1 turn will be played
- Never have offline sessions
- Always have offline sessions

What DP Restrictions should we have?
- None
- Require Citizen approval for each DP
- Allow Citizens to repel DP playing rights
- Require potential DP's to post playing preferences

let me know if I've missed anything, or if there are any more suggestions/corrections for the polls...

 

[ravensfire]

I'd replace the first poll with:

-- Never
-- Single Turn Only
-- At DP discretion
-- Always
-- Abstain

If 2nd or 3rd option wins, flesh it out further.

On your second poll, you're missing an 'a' in there ... I also really don't get the purpose of that poll - those options certainly aren't mutually exclusive. What's the goal? What question are you trying to answer?

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I'd replace the first poll with:
Who can play Offline Chat Sessions?
-- Never
-- Single Turn Only
-- At DP discretion
-- Always
-- Abstain

I won't consider this binding unless something like "only on citizen approval via poll" is included. Also "single turn only" is too narrow, I'd recommend replacing it with "special circumstances (example: single turn only)".

Actually, while I'm at it here are expanded definitions to take away all ambiguity...

When can play sessions be offline?
-- Never (always have a chat)
-- Special Circumstances (example: Single Turn Only)
-- At DP discretion (DP decides, no approval needed)
-- With citizen approval (Citizens poll, session by session)
-- Always (never have a chat)
-- Abstain

Edit: It seems my options are pretty much the same as the original ones, but with Ravensfire's wordings...

 

[Falcon02]

Okay I've got a few issues...

A.) "Special Circumstances" is too vague, I want to reduce this down to what special circumstances, (ie. the reason for the multiple-choice ability). If you've got other examples let's include them as separate options. Otherwise let's stick what we've got, and if we think of more later we can add them in an amendment or later poll.

B.) DS with your description of "citizen approval" you open up the potential that citizens decide EACH session if it's to be online or offline, regardless of DP's desires (adding lots of unnecessary red tape). Now if anyone supports this we can add it separately, but I thought of it as DP requests, Citizens approve. I think that was your intent as well, but the description wording is not the best...

And thanks forgot about Abstain...

 

[ravensfire]

-- At DP discretion (DP decides, no approval needed)
-- With citizen approval (Citizens poll, session by session)

Merge these two options, please. If it does win, then poll a decision on how to do it. Anything else is diluting any support for that option.

Keep the categories broad at this stage, get the details later.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

I can't agree Ravensfire, I would only support DP discretion so long as citizen approval is required... (thus the reason for the multiple choice). If such an important part of it vague at this stage, I don't think I'd vote for DP discretion.

 

[ravensfire]

I can't agree Ravensfire, I would only support DP discretion so long as citizen approval is required... (thus the reason for the multiple choice). If such an important part of it vague at this stage, I don't think I'd vote for DP discretion.

And that's why IF DP discretion wins, you work on determining how/when that happens. (EDIT) You might prefer that condition, someone else might prefer another condition, and someone else might prefer the same condition that you have, but at a different level of support that you do.

If you're going to poll various versions of one options, then determine the various options for "special circumstances" and put those out there. At a minimum, that would be 1) Presidential Declaration 2) Citizen Approval required

Be consistent in how you poll things, please.

EDIT: Let me point out that this is an excellent demonstration on how polls can be constructed so that they will skew towards various options or dilute various options. There are essentially 4 major options here - Always online, online except for special circumstances, online/offline at DP discretion, offline always. Toss in the usual other and abstain.

Now, you can split the middle two options by adding conditions to them - requires citizen approval, does not require citizen approval. The outer two variants don't have those conditions as they are absolutes. By adding in the conditionals, you dilute the overall support for the middle options as the proponents have to choose which conditional version they prefer.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

By adding in the conditionals, you dilute the overall support for the middle options as the proponents have to choose which conditional version they prefer.

-- Ravensfire

That's why I plan on allowing people to vote for several at once. Nothing is diluted, you vote for ALL options you support.

 

[ravensfire]

That's why I plan on allowing people to vote for several at once. Nothing is diluted, you vote for ALL options you support.

Very well - then there will be at least the two options for the "special circumstances", as I outlined, correct? I would not support such a session without citizen approval.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

Very well - then there will be at least the two options for the "special circumstances", as I outlined, correct? I would not support such a session without citizen approval.

-- Ravensfire

my original intent was separate out the citizens approval as a separate option.

But I've realized, some people may want DP to be approved and Special circumstances to not need approval or vise versa... so yeah, two options for each.

Also, technically if both Always and some of the conditions won out (as you could vote for Always as a preference, but the others should Always fail) then Always would win out being an exclusive extreme. Same for Never.

So everyone wants to do a general "Special circumstances?" then without clarification just yet?