donsig
Low level intermediary
DaveShack, you can't counter the *glacial pace of the forums* with a chat that allows *a "must stop" anywhere it is possible to stop and there are no instructions*. There are many times that no instructions are available even for things that are not unforeseen! Stopping everytime there is no instruction for something would make your local glacier look like the Indy Speedway!
As for *Anything said publicly by a leader, within the scope of that leader's responsibilities, should be thought of as an instruction and assumed to be legal* it is one more instance of the rhetoric thrown around that ignores the fact that the president is also an elected leader! Why is it that when something *unexpected occurs* any given leader at the chat is better able than the DP to determine *the will of the people* at that moment? What it all comes down to is who makes the choices once something *unexpected* happens? The whole idea behind the demogame is for a bunch of people to get together and play a game of Civ III together, for decisions to be made collectively. But the reality is that the *unexpected* can happen in such a way that the game cannot be put on hold. Yes, the infamous *pup-up windows*. When that happens a choice must be made then and there. Who is to make the decision? If the pop-up window asks us to withdraw troops from foreign territory which leader has the authority, foreign affairs or military? Once you answer that, then ask yourself what should form the basis of the decision? If we are to keep tp the spirit of the demogame (i.e., the idea that we are playing a game collectively) then whichever leader makes the decision should be basing it on the collective input of citizens. Of course it the pop-up window was truly unexpected then there is probably little input to go on. With no input it boils down to which elected leader makes the choice, i.e. it is a political question relating to the division of power among the leaders.
Of course the very existance of the chat makes this situation even more complex and political. Is it within the spirit of the demogame to poll the citizens who are present? Some have argued that doing so is more collective than one leader making the decision. Others have argued that those at the chat do not always represent the will of the people as a whole.
What gets me the most is that we end up arguing over general rules just because of one specific situation. It is a waste of time. We should be examining the specific situation to see where the trouble really lies. We could not do that back in term three. Perhaps we should try now since some time has passed and passions have subsided a bit.
The first thing I would say about the Aztec war is that it was not all that unexpected. We saw the Aztec settlers and tried blocking them. It was apparent they would build a city and of course that would mean we'd have troops within their new city's borders. As President I clearly pushed for war even before the city was built. I pmmed the foreign affairs leader asking him to find out the people's wishes regarding a possible war. He opened a discussion thread to do so. I also pmmed the military leader asking for invasion plans in case war came. The military department was inactive then. I would point out that had the military leader given instructions to remove our forces from the Aztec lands then the pop-up window never would have occured. My point is that the pop-up window was not unexpected, it was just a matter of very little input from the citizens. There will be times when the citizens do not explicitly lay out their *will*. When they do not then what should our leaders do?
Lastly, as far as forum versus chat based, there has been alot of talk about those at the chat being able to force a halt in the playing of the game. Things can go the other way as well. Those who recall term three may find it hard to believe but during my term as president in DG1 I was villified by those at the chat for stopping play! What is to be done when the DP wants to get input from the forums while those at the caht want play to continue?
As for *Anything said publicly by a leader, within the scope of that leader's responsibilities, should be thought of as an instruction and assumed to be legal* it is one more instance of the rhetoric thrown around that ignores the fact that the president is also an elected leader! Why is it that when something *unexpected occurs* any given leader at the chat is better able than the DP to determine *the will of the people* at that moment? What it all comes down to is who makes the choices once something *unexpected* happens? The whole idea behind the demogame is for a bunch of people to get together and play a game of Civ III together, for decisions to be made collectively. But the reality is that the *unexpected* can happen in such a way that the game cannot be put on hold. Yes, the infamous *pup-up windows*. When that happens a choice must be made then and there. Who is to make the decision? If the pop-up window asks us to withdraw troops from foreign territory which leader has the authority, foreign affairs or military? Once you answer that, then ask yourself what should form the basis of the decision? If we are to keep tp the spirit of the demogame (i.e., the idea that we are playing a game collectively) then whichever leader makes the decision should be basing it on the collective input of citizens. Of course it the pop-up window was truly unexpected then there is probably little input to go on. With no input it boils down to which elected leader makes the choice, i.e. it is a political question relating to the division of power among the leaders.
Of course the very existance of the chat makes this situation even more complex and political. Is it within the spirit of the demogame to poll the citizens who are present? Some have argued that doing so is more collective than one leader making the decision. Others have argued that those at the chat do not always represent the will of the people as a whole.
What gets me the most is that we end up arguing over general rules just because of one specific situation. It is a waste of time. We should be examining the specific situation to see where the trouble really lies. We could not do that back in term three. Perhaps we should try now since some time has passed and passions have subsided a bit.
The first thing I would say about the Aztec war is that it was not all that unexpected. We saw the Aztec settlers and tried blocking them. It was apparent they would build a city and of course that would mean we'd have troops within their new city's borders. As President I clearly pushed for war even before the city was built. I pmmed the foreign affairs leader asking him to find out the people's wishes regarding a possible war. He opened a discussion thread to do so. I also pmmed the military leader asking for invasion plans in case war came. The military department was inactive then. I would point out that had the military leader given instructions to remove our forces from the Aztec lands then the pop-up window never would have occured. My point is that the pop-up window was not unexpected, it was just a matter of very little input from the citizens. There will be times when the citizens do not explicitly lay out their *will*. When they do not then what should our leaders do?
Lastly, as far as forum versus chat based, there has been alot of talk about those at the chat being able to force a halt in the playing of the game. Things can go the other way as well. Those who recall term three may find it hard to believe but during my term as president in DG1 I was villified by those at the chat for stopping play! What is to be done when the DP wants to get input from the forums while those at the caht want play to continue?
