DG4 Discussion - Const: Article K

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Why SHOULD that be a requirement for President? You're telling me that if we have a great candidate, highly skilled at the game, great at starting and leading discussions, but doesn't have the time available that you would reject them out of hand as President? Ridiculous! As with zorven, I will probably not be in a position to run for President again.

I'll refine my position a bit by saying that it would be acceptable to me if a President can play for an hour, four times a week, or something to that effect (more turnchats that are shorter); I wouldn't reject them out of hand just because they couldn't play the turnchats in the conventional manner. If they would not do turnchats at all, then yes, I would reject them out of hand as president.

Assuming both the forums and IRC are down, I would agree with you. Assuming that only IRC is down, I do not.

IRC will never go down entirely, at least within the next decade or two. It is possible for the network to go down, in which case the President can simply post that we are changing temporarily to a different network and post which network that is (there are hundreds if not thousands that exist).

What basic right? I've had turn chats where there was 1 other person there! One! Ask Rik about the chat he ran for me - he literally had a monologue for most of it!

The people have a right to have a summary of the events of the session - that's it. A chat log, a written summary, whatever. The DP must give them a log of what happened. Some of the chat logs get so filled with useless garbage that reading them is difficult at best.

I've had turnchats like that too, but I would still never consider removing them. In fact, turnchats with only one or two other people there were very useful in getting the opinion of one or two other dedicated demogame users, usually cabinet leaders, and making a decision quickly (as well as having a non-cluttered chat log). Even when the turnchat was a monologue for me, I still consider it very important for people to have the opportunity to find out what was going on as I played it, and my reactions to each thing, in a manner that only a chat can provide. As far as the useless garbage during busy chats, that is a problem and perhaps the ops should be more rigorous about temporarily deviocing spammers. However, busy chats will allow the DP to get a better feel for what the will of the people is on a particular issue, even if it is not official. I am very sure that the DP performs better when he has several people to fall back on when making a decision. As far as a written summary, I think both a chat log and a summary should be provided, and wouldn't hesitate to write the summary into law, as the chat log gives an observer who wasn't at the chat a comprehensive view on what was going on at the time, as the events were happening, and the summary gives people an idea of what happened without having to download and read the log.

So if a DP devoices everyone, and types a log of what happens, what's the difference between that and an off-line session? None! The game log itself, and the analysis of citizens and leaders of the various saves is the ONLY failsafe for verifying the actions of leaders. Chat logs can be edited, heck the DP can flat-out lie during the session and NOBODY WOULD KNOW. A DP can very easily act dishonorably, and you wouldn't know until the end of the session when the final save is posted. A live chat CANNOT prevent such an action any better than an offline session.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that any DP would be so dishonest as to lie to an entire chatroom of people on what had occurred, and edit chat logs and the like (plus editing chat logs would take a considerable degree of time if any major editing was perfomed). And if we're so worried about that, all we need to do is pass a law stating that the President must tell chat participants of what is going on in the save at regular intervals during the chat in an honest fashion. I do not think that the DP should devoice everybody in a chat and hold a monologue; that would be a gross abuse of his powers and we could pass a law against that as well. With such laws, though dishonorable actions certainly couldn't be prevented, they could be made a major violation and subject to extreme penalties in PI's.

EDIT: corrected bold, spacing, and quote issues.

 

[Cyc]

quoting Ravensfire:
What basic right? I've had turn chats where there was 1 other person there! One! Ask Rik about the chat he ran for me - he literally had a monologue for most of it!

The people have a right to have a summary of the events of the session - that's it. A chat log, a written summary, whatever. The DP must give them a log of what happened. Some of the chat logs get so filled with useless garbage that reading them is difficult at best.

You've got to be kidding me, Ravensfire. You have been part of the Demogame experience for one game and you're going to tell us what rights we have as citizens? Why don't we just let you write the Constitution then?

The people have all the rights. The Leaders are servants of the people. I will not allow you to wrest control of the Demogame away from the citizens just to make it more convenient for you to play. Sure we're making some changes to the structure of the game to try some new things, but the rights of the citizenry are not up for bid.

And sure there have been t/c's with only 1 citizen there talking with the DP. I have been that one person many times, with people like Shaitan in the dark:30 chats, with Chieftess in the middle of the day. What does that matter? The chat was witnessed and tempered by a citizen, and that citizen can authenticate the chat log. Believe me, I read the chat logs of chats I've been at to see if anything has been deleted. It doesn't make any difference if the DP has an audience to play for or not. The t/c should be held in the Demogame chatroom at the sheduled time everytime to allow people to attend. If the President gets tied up or can't make the scheduled appointment, there will probably be someone there that can take their place (see Chain of Command).

If we had been running closed door sessions when CG turned a Wonder into a University (actually the game did it), and then didn't give his summarry until 5 days later (like he did), and in that summary was very vague about the incident (like he did), then all hell would have broken loose, lead by me (luckily, I had just semi-retired). Good thing we were running an open t/c with a chat log that had back-up. In reading that chat log, I noticed at least 3 high ranking players in attendance who, although chatting about nonsensical things, witnessed the event. That's the kind of thing we need. Let me clarify...even though the incident took place right in front of these citizens making lame jokes, it still occured. Things happen! But we need to be able to witness them, first hand, plus have that witnessing available in a chat log. Biased recollections made by the DP about 10 very important turns should not be presented to the people as a substitute for what we've always had. Our rights would be infringed by closed door sessions, period.

 

[ravensfire]

Actually Cyc,

I lurked for the last month of DG1, most of DG2, spoke up some at the end, then DG3.

Yes, I'm a master lurker.

I don't see this in any way taking away a right of the people. The people have a right to a log of the actions during a game, that's it. Tradition has turned the privledge of a turn chat into the appearance of a right - I don't want that legislated.

Your example, no offense, doesn't really demonstrate much. A good game log would provide exactly the same information, and might have been spotted sooner because all of the noise would be reduced. The chat log is nothing more than a session summary with extra garbage added for good measure. Look at the summaries you see in some succession games - THAT'S the type of summary I'm talking about. Detailed, specific and easy to follow. These aren't done off memory, but as the game progresses, similar to an IRC session.

The only, ONLY viable reason I can see for a on-line chat is to allow a weaker player as President, where people can advise them. In the process, we eliminate the ability of other people to run for President. But that's okay, we can eliminate their right to run for office, correct? But don't citizens have the right to run for all offices? Now we've got a restriction on the President - gotta have an IRC client, and anywhere from 3-6 hours straight to run the session. Can't - sorry bub - try another office.

Witnessing the chat log is witnessing one person's interpretation of the game. Reading a summary is witnessing one person't interpretation of the game.

As a citizen who's participation is pretty much forum only at this point, I don't really care if the session is on or off line. I want a good summary of the session so I know what happened. I personally get quite upset when I see that a decision was strongly influenced by people at the chat, especially if it's a decision that I don't agree with. Why? Because I was denied my right to speak on that issue. Instead, a small minority of citizens was allowed to influence the DP. Admittedly, I usually only get upset when the advice is unsolicited, or statements like "you MUST do this" or "But the spot vote says you have to do this!" are made.

As a person in support of a mostly forum-based game, I want to allow the opportunity for offline sessions. I want the decision for on vs off to be part of the election process and Presidential duties. I want the rights of all forum-only citizens to be upheld, and the influence of those who attend any on-line citizens to be kept to an absolute minimum.

I am supporting the rights of all citizens to participate equally in the game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by ravensfire
I don't see this in any way taking away a right of the people. The people have a right to a log of the actions during a game, that's it. Tradition has turned the privledge of a turn chat into the appearance of a right - I don't want that legislated.

Why can't we make it a right?

The only, ONLY viable reason I can see for a on-line chat is to allow a weaker player as President, where people can advise them. In the process, we eliminate the ability of other people to run for President. But that's okay, we can eliminate their right to run for office, correct? But don't citizens have the right to run for all offices? Now we've got a restriction on the President - gotta have an IRC client, and anywhere from 3-6 hours straight to run the session. Can't - sorry bub - try another office.

So you're saying that only weaker presidents would ever have a need to be advised by members of the lowly citizenry (the ones that attended the chat, that is)? I think that every president that has ever held a turnchat has benifitted from the on-the-spot feedback from the citizenry in making his/her decisions. What makes you think that taking away the ability of the citizens (who are willing to participate) the ability to provide live feedback to the president while the president is playing the save is a good thing? When I was President, it was very useful to have people, especially Department Leaders (Rik Meleet being the best example) in the chat to advise me on unforseen circumstances and to grant permission to do various things that were not planned for in the instruction thread(ermergency rushes, for instance). And see my post about allowing nonconventional spacing and length of turnchats, why wouldn't somebody who is able to commit to being President at least be able to hold some form of turnchat, even if only an hour long each time? If they can commit the time to play the save, they should be able to use online feedback as well. And yes, people who don't have the time to play the save would be denied the "right" to be an effective president, and should not be president at all, however please note that nothing's stopping them from running (though if they win there would be trouble). As far as IRC clients go, we have a java applet here at CFC, and if for whatever reason somebody was unable to access that, there are a host of IRC clients and scripts that can be downloaded for free.

Witnessing the chat log is witnessing one person's interpretation of the game. Reading a summary is witnessing one person't interpretation of the game.

In witnessing the chat log, you are not only seeing one person's interpretation of the game, but rather that person's interpretation of the game as well as live feedback from the people who were there, advising him. Additionally, it is easier to provide evidence of any wrongdoing by the president if there is a chat log to back it up. And Cyc made a valid point about what happened once while CG was the DP, and a wonder morphed into a University; if there hadn't been a turnchat, all hell would have broken loose, and it would take a long time for the people to figure out what had actually happened.

As a citizen who's participation is pretty much forum only at this point, I don't really care if the session is on or off line. I want a good summary of the session so I know what happened. I personally get quite upset when I see that a decision was strongly influenced by people at the chat, especially if it's a decision that I don't agree with. Why? Because I was denied my right to speak on that issue. Instead, a small minority of citizens was allowed to influence the DP. Admittedly, I usually only get upset when the advice is unsolicited, or statements like "you MUST do this" or "But the spot vote says you have to do this!" are made.

So I imagine it's better to deny everybody's "right" to speak on that particular issue than to allow the people who chose to attend the turnchat to be able to advise the DP? I do understand your comments about spot votes, but such comments carry no real weight (unless the DP wants to listen), as the spot votes are purely informational. The people saying things like "you MUST do this" may be trying to get the DP to follow the instructions that were posted in the thread, instructions that the DP forgot or overlooked. The ability to correct the DP during the turnchat will reduce the number of overlooked instructions and forgotten

As a person in support of a mostly forum-based game, I want to allow the opportunity for offline sessions. I want the decision for on vs off to be part of the election process and Presidential duties. I want the rights of all forum-only citizens to be upheld, and the influence of those who attend any on-line citizens to be kept to an absolute minimum.

I am supporting the rights of all citizens to participate equally in the game.

Almost without exception, people who do not attend the turnchats at all or very sparingly do so because they choose not to. Yes, I know that RL events, time zones, etc. cause people to miss certain turnchats, but then again those same RL events cause them not to be able to participate as much on the forums as well. Keep in mind that all citizens have the right to participate in turnchats, whether they actually attend them is irrelevant.

 

[ravensfire]

We're going round and round on this one - this will be my last post on this issue. I cannot change your mind, nor can you affect my opinion.

Boots, the example of CG is rather poor for your case. This problem was NOT found in the chat. It was found afterwards, by reviewing the summary of the game. In this case - the chat log. Where, in ANY of my posts, have I suggested that the DP post anything other than a detailed summary? I haven't.

The DP in a chat can simply play the game without posting a detailed summary in the IRC session - where is a single law requiring detail? None - custom and tradition. Those actions will also work in an off-line session, pushing the DP towards the action we, the citizens, desire. There is absolutely nothing related to providing a game summary that applies to an on-line session, but not an off-line session. And that is how it should be - the law should specify the result, not the means.

Your last comment quite bothers me. You cannot possible make such an assumption. You have just implied that I, and others, just don't really care. Why thanks Boots. Your concern is touching.

RL is a major factor for many people here. Things such as work, school and family demand large amounts of time. To dismiss them in such an off-hand manner and assert that apathy is the reason is ridiculous.

You are correct that participating in a on-line chat can be made a right of the people. Go ahead, step on the rights of others to assert the right that a bare handful of people exercise - I won't stop you anymore.

I will not participate further in this thread. Poll this so we can move on.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Your last comment quite bothers me. You cannot possible make such an assumption. You have just implied that I, and others, just don't really care. Why thanks Boots. Your concern is touching.

RL is a major factor for many people here. Things such as work, school and family demand large amounts of time. To dismiss them in such an off-hand manner and assert that apathy is the reason is ridiculous.

It is obvious that you and others do really care, otherwise we wouldn't have had this debate. My point came didn't come across in the way I intended, and it is my fault that it didn't. I apologize for making my above post sound like an attack on those that can't attend most turnchats. What I meant was this: Simply because some people can't attend certain chats (and of course everybody has chats that they can't attend) doesn't mean that others should be denied the ability to give the President advice while the turn is playing. When I am not at certain chats, or miss parts of them, I certainly don't mind others contributing advice in my absence. However, what I did intend to do was to show that people that never attend chats do so out of their own decision; I'm fairly certain that every demogame citizen can attend at least a few turnchats during the game, though it is certainly understandable if they can't make the majority of them.

You are correct that participating in a on-line chat can be made a right of the people. Go ahead, step on the rights of others to assert the right that a bare handful of people exercise - I won't stop you anymore.

I think that others should exercise this right when at all possible, even if it's only attending one turnchat for 20 minutes each month, I think that each citizen should exercise this right when it is possible for them to do so.

I respect your decision to stop debating this, but I do hope you acknowledge what I was intending to say.

 

[Bootstoots]

I should probably add this as well, just as an afterthought:

Boots, the example of CG is rather poor for your case. This problem was NOT found in the chat. It was found afterwards, by reviewing the summary of the game. In this case - the chat log. Where, in ANY of my posts, have I suggested that the DP post anything other than a detailed summary? I haven't.

My point on this issue is that it is not likely that CG would have covered that issue in much detail in a turn summary, and even if he did it would sound more fishy than it would if done live, and it would have caused many more problems than simply posting it out of a chat log would have.

 

[Cyc]

I will add that it is not a right to attend a t/c. It is not a right to advise the President, nor tell that President what to do. It is not the right of citizens to do a lot of things they do in a t/c. But in this Demogame forum, it is the right of citizens to be able to witness first hand the mechanics of the game and verify the outcome of the moves that were made by the person that they put in the Office of President/DP, and t/c's are the media with which to do just that. If a person can not afford the time or the energy to allow for this, then no...they should not run for the Office, out of courtesy at least, to the rest of the nation.

A verbal President/DP in a t/c is always desired. Ravensfire, you were a damn good DP (although at the moment I don't remeber your summaries). A DP that continually tells the participants of the t/c what is going on is also telling the people who read the chat log the same thing. It's crucial information and should continue to be one of our strong sources of info. A good summary is also desired from each DP. It is their job to post a timely summary of each chat they hold. One of the main reasons I liked donsig as President was because he wrote excellent summaries for his chat. Excellent summaries were typical for any of his administrations. So I agree with you there. We need great summaries, even uploaded screenshots would help. The more information the better. But keep in mind this is not a succession game. We don't need to live up to those standards.

I am a very strong supportor of a forum based game, always have been, always will be. But turn chats are a matter of fact for the Demogame. It was a right laid out in the very first few statements about the creation of this game. Well actually it started out for just the Leaders and the President, but then it changed to everyone. Someone has to keep an eye on you elite politicians...

Anyway, in conclusion, "TURN CHATS ~ GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS"

 

[FortyJ]

Obviously ravensfire and zorven are both quite passionate about removing this clause from the Constitution. I for one am equally passionate about retaining it and I hope that there are many more out there that share my point of view.

I had written rather lengthy post including quotations rebutting the arguments in here, but decided not to add any more fuel to this fire. I would like to say a few things though.

I think:

• the public turn chat is extremely important to the integrity of the demogame.
• citizen spot votes and other advice received from the participants of the turn chat should not be compulsory.
• there is a huge difference between a summary written by the DP and a chat log that can be verified by other attendees.
• even with some of my extremely long turn chats during my presidency, the amount of time needed for that position was dwarfed by the commitment needed for some of the other offices.
• barring matters of national security, there is no reason why the citizenry should be denied the right (or priviledge) to observe the playing of the game.
• having at least 1 person present at the turn chat other than the DP is infinitely better than having none.

Finally, Cyc is almost right...

PUBLIC TURN CHATS ~ GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS ~ GOOD FOR THE DEMOGAME!

 

[zorven]

I see the value of and utility of public turn chats, but I don't think they should be a requirement. I believe most if not all game play would occur during turn chats even if this wasn't a requirement, but not requiring it would allow for some flexibility. Drop the requirement and let it be a campaign issue.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
My point on this issue is that it is not likely that CG would have covered that issue in much detail in a turn summary,

This brings up a good point about poor turn summaries. We should require game play summaries in the form that succession games use. I have always been puzzled by the lack of a good summary by the DP. If we had reports like those seen in succession games it would allow many more citizens to participate becuase they wouldn't be required to wade through chat logs, games saves, and dozens of threads to be able to see what the state of the game is.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am rarely able to attend turn chats, and I am not a strong advocate of them, given some abuses of the system through tiny groups of citizens making decisions in chat, versus going to the forums.

However, I cannot advocate doing away with TC. Too many folks gain their enjoyment of this demo game from them, and that should weigh heavily in our consideratons.

I am in favor of two sometimes overlooked, and seemingly contradicting, but very important rules. First, the DP is the only participant who can decide to end a chat early. There is no vote of participants, etc... It is the DP who decides. However, secondly, the DP should follow the properly posted instructions of leaders and governors, and when key events occur, with significant implications (compeletion by a rival of a wonder we were building with no optional instructions posted, sudden DoW, etc...) then the turn should end, and the forums used to make strategy.

It is a delicate balance. I want the turn chat folks to have their fun, but also the direction of the game to be decided by the whole of the citizenry, via the only available vehicle, the forums.

 

[DaveShack]

Regarding the CG wonder incident, I was there, knew exactly what had happened, and wanted to tell him to do a double switch to ensure we still got one of the wonders. I think it was term 4 (if memory serves) and I was DL at the time, and assuming my recollection of when it happened is correct, would have had the authority to override build queues under the constitutional amendment I proposed (that failed). Donsig had just gotton finished with drilling me (and everyone else) with the concept that nobody at the chat should have the authority to tell the DP to do anything, so I kept my mouth shut. I count that my biggest mistake in DG3.

Bottom line, chats are better than no chats because additional eyes can keep these little mistakes from happening, assuming the DP posts a competant summary of what is going on.

There are also social aspects to the chat we need to hold on to. believe it or not, term 1 of DG3 was my first experience signing on to IRC, and the chat is what kept me in the game that 1st month.

 

[donsig]

Once again I submit my proposal, based on the DG3 constitution (an elegant document to say the least).

Our taboo against playing the save should be elevated from the CoL (or where ever it currently is) to the constitution. That is done in this proposal. The proposal also ensures a log. It deflates the chat / no chat debate by ignoring it. I am not big fan of the chat and I am opposed to institutionalizing it in the constitution. Please note that this proposal does not forbid chats, nor does it forbid things like off-line preturns or things along those lines.

The porposal:

Any game actions taken by the DP must be documented in a game play log (examples: Notes or chat log). The game play log must be made publicly available in a timely manner.

1. Commission of any game action that is not instantly reversible by any person other than the President while carrying out his/her duties is strictly forbidden.

a. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am in opposition to that proposal (copied from the DG3 constitution), for reasons stated above. I would like to submit my own counterproposal, which will call for the use of turn chats in all game actions that involve moving from one turn to the next. It also makes a couple of minor tweaks in subsection 1, by closing a loophole whereby any person can move troops on a railroad and changes President to Designated Player to provide for somebody other than the President playing the save if necessary.

My counterproposal:

All game actions taken by the Designated Player must be performed in a public turn chat, with the exception of preturn actions which do not require advancing to the next turn. A chat log must be provided to the public in a timely fashion after a turn chat, and all preturn actions taken offline must be made known to the public.

1. The moving of troops or commission of any other game action that is not instantly reversible by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out his/her duties is strictly forbidden.

a. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@Boots - You want all documentation of every pre-turn move, no matter how small, to be a part of our Constitution? I would rather require a post-game summary, but even that may be too specific for what we are trying to accomplish here.

I think before we proceed any further, we should proceed with FortyJ's suggested poll:

Nonetheless, this needs to be polled. Options should include status quo(turnchat only), public/private at president's option, and all private.

Can someone here please draft a poll? I believe this will help to give us direction.

 

[DaveShack]

Regarding logging of every move, if SpiderZord ever finishes PowerTimeline its logging function would provide exactly what we need. Failing that, I would support requiring a log equivalent in function to a SG turn report, or a QSC.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

I think before we proceed any further, we should proceed with FortyJ's suggested poll:

Nonetheless, this needs to be polled. Options should include status quo(turnchat only), public/private at president's option, and all private.

Can someone here please draft a poll? I believe this will help to give us direction.

Do we need to poll the 3 general choices? I don't think anybody has even proposed "private only". And to save time, it would be nice to poll the actual proposals instead of having 2 polls. I will throw a poll up when these questions are answered.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Bumping this thread.....

Could someone please post a poll containing the following?

Which standard should we include in Article K of our Constitution?

1. Status quo(turnchat only)

2. Public/private at President's discretion

Once again, pressed for time , so please dress this up a bit and send it on its way.

 

[zorven]

Please Vote in the Poll

 

[Sarevok]

its good, a president, though elected ought to have public opinion before doing something crazy like making a declaration of war.