DG4 - Forum-based or Chat-based

[ravensfire]

In the discussion on the frameworks I've tossed out, the question has been raised of whether we want a forum-based game, a chat-based game, or a mix. If you prefer a mix, where exactly do you draw the line?

This is an important discussion, as it will drive many decisions and discussions. Please, everyone post your viewpoints and continue the discussion in a friendly manner.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

 

[FortyJ]

Choosing an entirely (or even predominantly) Chat-based framework will severely restrict the number of participants in the game. The forums are an excellent medium for the Demogame because they afford many people from all over the world, each with differing work/school schedules the opportunity to participate.

I believe it would be a shame to use the chat rooms for anything more than the actual playing of the game (ie. the Turn Chats themselves).

 

[ravensfire]

My preference is strongly for a forum-based game only. I'm a firm believer that we have elected the officials to enable the DP to play the game. Implicit in that election is the trust that the DP will act in the best interest of our country, limited by the legal instructions given to them in the game play session instruction thread.

I've served as President for one term. During that time, Fanatica grew dramatically, with many improvements being rushed, workers merged and wonders built. At times, Rik Meleet and I had extended conversations in the chat due to the lack of rush requests from Governors, despite many pleas.

I didn't like that.

The comment was made in one chat that I was running a monologue. We have 15-20 active citizens on the forum, yet only 3-4 show up for turn chats. Several citizens live outside of the US, or have limited access to computers. These citizens cannot attend chat sessions. Should we then silence their voice, solely because of circumstances outside of their control?

A comment that I see in response is that unforeseen circumstances happen, and the DP must respond! That MUST mean a citizen vote in the chat!

It's a decent arguement, but not a strong one. First, we should rarely encounter an "unforeseen circumstance." But, you say, we don't know when a foreign civ will make a tribute demand, or declare war, or lob scimitars! What is this - can we not plan ahead? Look at Boots' instructions for the previous term - I knew exactly how to respond. When the threat of war started to loom, he included instructions for responding to that. I don't have a problem with the DP requesting input from citizens at a chat, just not at the expense of those who are not at the chat.

The DP continually responds to unforeseen circumstances - especially with workers. We already trust them to handle this correctly. Why can we not extend this trust to other areas? Are we such control freaks that we feel the DP is a mere robot, responding exactly to input? I think we need to change that thinking.

The DP should be able to recognize when a situation has developed that is beyond the expectations of given instructions. While I prefer that the DP stop the game play session at this point, that should not be an absolute requirement. The DP needs to be given the flexibility that when a situation arises that the instructions given will result in harm done to our country to alter those instructions, explicitly noting what was done and why, then continue. After the session, such actions can be examined and evaluated.

That's my view point anyway. Forum based game, not chat based game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[TerminalMan90]

I think it would be good to have a mix of chat and forum. I agree with 40J that just chat would be limiting.

I like the idea of a citizen chat, simply because I would like to get to know others who are not elected. It would be a good place to ask questions and get to know other CIV fanatics. I don't currently have IRC chat because I have no good reason to get it. This would be a good reason.

Another reason that a chat component (aside from the turn chat) would be good is that it would speed up discussions. We wouldn't have to wait for 2 days for each poll, for instance. BTW, I am not saying that we should do away with polls; they are an important medium for deciding rules and such.

 

[Cyc]

I agree with everyone here and donsig too. This is a forum-based game. Has been from the begining. Occasionally situations or people will try to wrestle that concept over to a chat-based game. I know how tempting it can be. Sometimes the circumstances seem to beg interaction. But when you get right down to it, this is a forum-based game and should always remain just that.

I have always said there was nothing like a Demogame t/c. Back in the day I'd show up with a couple of beers and play my favorite game with some pretty cool people from around the world. It didn't matter who the DP was, it was just plain fun. But we were always supposed to adhere to the forum-based Instructions and will of the people. Those were the rules.

But we went from the DP asking advice from his council or the citizens in the t/c, to official spot votes (whether council or not), to citizens in the t/c demanding that their voice be obeyed. It was a whirlwind development that was supposed to be worked out through the PI system. But people joined separate camps and started grudge wars.

As I've stated in other posts, this was being worked on at the end of DG2 and never continued because of these separate camps. As opposed to climbing the last few hills, the citizens decided to toss in the towel and move on to DG3 with its less restrictive atmosphere.

Here I go rambling again.

Anyway, forum-based.

 

[zorven]

Definetely forum-based. Most of us do not have the time or schedules to be able to attend turn-chats. All legal instructions should come from the forums. The turn-chats should only be a way for citizens to "watch" the DP play the game. As for "unforseen" situations: most of those can be planned for. Those that aren't are left up to the DP to decide - that is why we elected him/her.

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve that the Demogame should be both a Forum based and a Chat based. The game actions should take place during the chatroom on the turnchats.

 

[Noldodan]

My views have changed over the past few months about chats vs. forums. I think that this game should be mostly forums with the turnchats merely serving as a public record and a social gathering. HOWEVER, if we do not enact laws obligating certain officials (namely the foreign affairs leader) to post instructions regarding everything possible, with Boots' posts being a good example. If these laws are not enacted, I think that we HAVE to give chatters more power in relation to the decision-making process in unplanned-for circumstances.

 

[Bootstoots]

Obviously, we need to keep this game a forum-based one. I would like there to be an official way to force the DP to bring decisions to the forums, however. Perhaps it could work like this:
-One citizen may request that the President stop the chat.
-If two more citizens agree, then the request becomes a demand and the DP must either comply or hold a spot vote on whether to stop the chat, after which the chat must be stopped if a majority of people in the chat wish for it to be stopped.

This would actually make this game more forum-based, as there would be a way to keep the President from running away with the save.

 

[Noldodan]

We definetly need that law, Boots. In fact I tried to do that when the Aztec war started, but Donsig simply ignored the 9 to 4 vote and continued on without the input of the forum-goers, in the name of the forum-goers. Go figure.

 

[zorven]

I am opposed to any sort of chat demands or spot votes. If we want the DP to stop the chat in certain circumstances, we should legislate it, not allow only those able to attend the chat have that power.

 

[Noldodan]

I agree with that, Zorven. In fact, there's a thread on that a few pages back, but it never came to a vote.

 

[Bootstoots]

My problem with that is that there are usually circumstances where the president should stop the chat but isn't mandated to or is required to stop the chat for something trivial. If, for instance, we mandated that the chat be stopped for all wars, we would have to stop for every consecutive MA (against us) of a domino war, and if England had declared war on us (before Germany wiped them off the planet), it wouldn't matter at all, certainly not enough to stop the chat...after all, what could a four-city jungle-bound tiny country possibly do to us? I'd much rather vote on stoppages of a chat on a case-by-case basis, and the only way to do that is through a spot vote in the turnchat. Giving the people at the turnchat that power allows the forum-only users to have more power as well, as they would then get more influence in that situation.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Forum-based.

But the TC should gain importance. It is the most direct way to interact during game-play.

The most likely possibilities that could happen in a TC should be forseen by the elected officials and instructions posted in the Instructions thread in advance. This asks more from our elected officials, but what else are they elected for?

I give you an example; it's the start of a new game; we have 2 cities and some workers. No contacts yet and some units scouting and a settler on it's way to a designated (in the forum) spot. It is likely we'll meet someone soon, or encouter barbarians.Instructions should be posted expecting this. It could be like:
"if you meet anyone, stop the chat",
"if you meet anyone, declare war",
"if you meet anyone, make as many trades as possible",
"if you meet anyone, don't trade Tech XXX, but trade the rest as you like",
"if you meet anyone, prioritise gold over tech; so sell rather than trade techs",
"if you meet anyone, don't try to get tech XXX, we'll research it soon". etc.

Or:
"As soon as you see barbarians, settle on the spot or if they can't kill the settler move to the designated spot to settle",
"As soon as you see barbarians, switch city XXX to unit YYY",
"As soon as you see barbarians, send unit XXX in city YYY to attack / defend unit ZZZ",
"As soon as you see barbarians, stop the chat".
"As soon as you see barbarians, increase lux/sci/tax"

I hope you get the point.

This will make the TC more fluent and prevents (to a certain degree) a DP only playing 1 or 2 turns due to (semi) unexpected events.

A second point related to this is that the TC can continue for several turns, not limiting it to 10. And it makes it clear when to stop a chat and when not to; when a situation occurs that is not expected or posted, that stops it.

 

[Cyc]

Personally, I agree with Article 5, Section 4 of FortyJ's Constitution proposal. I believe that's the best way to handle that situation. We need to give our elected officials the power theyb deserve and take some away from the chat goers.

 

[Giaddon]

Forum-based is the way to go. It acts as a central nexus where polls can be created, issues discussed, save games distributed, etc. It also creates a permenent record, so any desicion or discussion can be reviwed at any time. Chats are hard to perserve, especially for many people. The forum seems to be working fine, and I think we should stick with it.

Prior to a turnchat, I think there should be a general idea of what the citizens want, like Rik was saying. But if anything unexpected happens, I think it should be the elected officials that make the calls (that's why we elect them!), then, after the turnchat, update the citizens, who can then voice their opnions about what we do from there.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Noldodan
We definetly need that law, Boots. In fact I tried to do that when the Aztec war started, but Donsig simply ignored the 9 to 4 vote and continued on without the input of the forum-goers, in the name of the forum-goers. Go figure.

Aztec settlement thread. Please look at this thread. It was posted way back in term three by Zarn, the FA leader. This was the only discussion of war with the Aztecs.

Citizens posting against war: Cyc, Rik Meleet (not totally opposed to war)

neutral citizens: Zarn

Citizens posting in favor of war: donsig, Ehecatle Atzin, conehead234, Vander, Donovan Zoi (conditional)

So, here is the true test of whether you all want a forum based game or a chat based game. Which should have more weight in making the decision about war - the forum discussion or Noldodan's 9-4 vote in the chat? Why was it that only 7 citizens voiced an opinion in the forum when there were 13 people showing up at the chat back in those days? How would things have played out if those 9 people who opposed the war in the chat had posted thier views in the forum? Beyond that what was the point in ending the chat once the war started?

I've come to bleive that a game play schedule should be made before the game starts and it should be stuck to. It should specify how many turns should be played and that number of turns should be played no matter what happens. Ten turns may be too much. Perhaps we should play five turns a session and have three sessions per week.I know Civ III is a turn based game but I think the game would be much more fun if delays were eliminated. Play x number of turns on a regular basis and we will learn how to plan ahead to avoid troubles.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

forum based with a small element of chat. The chat is only where the turns are played, not the whole game. The game itself should be entirely forum based. The chat in my opinion only adds to the fun element as Cyc mentioned

 

[DaveShack]

I believe the game should be primarily forum-based with a strong chat presence as well.

Some Forum advantages

• Wider participation from those who cannot attend chats
• Longer time period to make decisions
• Extended discussions can be held

Some Chat advantages

• Community aspects
  • It's fun
  • A chance for coversation-speed interaction, vs. the glacial pace of forums
• Direct participation during game play
• A means to handle unplanned events with more than one person deciding

What should be available during chat

• The ability for leaders or their representatives to change their instructions according to circumstances
• The capability to stop play if true unplanned events occur (mechanism TBD)
• A full account of what goes on during the turn -- this should be in QSC-like detail!

What should the chat not be

• A means for leaders to shirk their responsibility to lead discussions and seek the citizens' advice in the forums
• A power struggle between the DP and those who show up at the chat
• So burdensome to the DP that it takes the fun out of actually playing the game

Who would I most emulate as the DP during a chat? I'd say Shaitan and Chieftess during term 1. I felt more "in the game" due to being able to make comments during chats, even as an unelected joe citizen, vs. forum participation which felt too impersonal to me.

My chat experiences as an elected leader were also fun, and it bugged me a lot when I came back from vacation near the beginning of term 3 and found chaos. I firmly believe that we lost active participation from several key players shortly thereafter solely because the chat was de-emphasized.

So, what do we really need?
Balanced Participation

How do we get it?

• Specify in the law minimum forum participation guidelines for leaders
• Specify how unplanned circumstances are to be handled -- one option is a "must stop" anywhere it is possible to stop and there are no instructions.
• Provide a way for chatgoers to participate actively
• 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.
• The DP can never be at fault for following an apparently legal instruction -- if anyone is at fault, it is the leader who acts improperly.
• Enough detail in the rules to cover everything, or at least most things, but enough flexibility to let the DP play and the leaders lead.

 

[Jayne]

I say definately forum-based. I have just got a new laptop capable of running CivIII and hope to get involved in the new demogame. I'm already an experienced CivII demogame player (if you don't believe me, ask Oct X! ).

The reason I say forum-based is this. I live in England and log on in the morning when most of the Americas are asleep and Europeans at school or work. If it was in the majority chat-based, I wouldn't be able to participate. Maybe just keep the chatroom stuff for playing the turn and roleplaying.