DG4 Ruleset: Turn/Calendar Based Terms

[Donovan Zoi]

How should we measure the length of our terms for DG4? Which way is most fair? Which method is easiest to follow and implement?

Turn based: Leaders will be elected to a term consisting of a predetermined number of turns, so that during every term the same amount of turns is played.

Calendar Based: Elections will be based on the calendar month, so that elected leaders will stay in office for roughly the same amount of days.

This discussion will run through Monday November 3rd, after which I wil post a poll.

 

[Ankka]

I think turnbased would be more even to the officials, if turns arent played strictly in time always.

 

[FortyJ]

I believe the calendar-based system is the truly fair method of establishing terms.

With Turn-based Terms, elected officials may find themselves in office for as short a time as 2 weeks, or as long as 2+ months, all depending on what is accomplished in the actual playing of the game. Also, consider the fact that the DP, which is the President in most instances, has the power to cancel the turn chat at any time. This would allow a President the ability to delay the end of a term long enough to accomplish some personal agenda, posting a few critical polls, etc....

Meanwhile, with Calendar-based Terms, the elected officials have equal time in office regardless of the events that transpire within the game. Additionally, none of the officials have the ability to directly affect the duration of their tenure in office. Calendar-based Terms provide structure to the game.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Calendar based terms, anything else would be unnatural

 

[DaveShack]

The whole reason turn-based was suggested in the first place was that we had a period where the President seemed bent on getting in a certain number of turns regardless of forum participation or whether common sense indicated that additional discussion time remained. The thought was that if some of the pressure to finish by a certain date were removed, the President would be more likely to accept stoppages.

Back then, I suggested a hybrid approach:

Minimum term length = calendar month
Maximum term length = 1.5 calendar months
Minimum number of turns played = 50 by the time nominations open

The term ends at 1 month if at least 50 turns have been played at the time nominations should open, or at 1.5 months (on the 15th) if fewer than 50 turns have been played to that point.

I would also be fine with just ignoring the issue of people who want to burn through as many turns as possible in their month. It might be a self-correcting problem in future elections anyway, if this type of legal but bad behvaiour does not push people away.

 

[GenMarshall]

I stronly support the Calaender Based terms. I disliked the Terms in the MSDG since they run on a Turnly bases which realy makes some people less interested in the game.

 

[Octavian X]

I could see impleamenting a bit of a mix. I can see judicial elections being on a calendar basis, for the sake of fairness of the bench, with executive positions going turnly, for the realism...

 

[FortyJ]

There are always ways of handling a DP that refuses to stop a chat despite an obvious reason to do so (and, by the way, I do not subscribe to the mentality that just because the majority of people at the chat want it to stop constitutes a valid reason to stop the chat).

In my previous point, I argued the case for a Calendar-based Election Cycle on the grounds that it would be less prone to abuse. I wish to reaffirm that point with this additional consideration to boot: A Turn-based Election Cycle will likely lead to a drop in participation during Elections.

Under a Calendar-based cycle, everyone knows what days (or roughly what time of each month) that elections take place. Such a system provides structure, and this structure allows individuals to be absent from the game for a bit and still return to participate in elections (and perhaps become involved in the game once again).

A Turn-based cycle will remove that structure from the game, and make it that much harder to lure absent players back to the game.

To those of you who doubt this supposition, I simply ask that you look at the previous demogames. Compare the number of votes cast in polls taken in the middle of the term on everyday issues to the number of votes cast in the election polls. Remove the fixed times for these elections, and I fear that we will find ourselves with fewer and fewer participants in our elections (which, due to our census rules, may have a significant trickle-down effect on the game).

 

[FortyJ]

One more log to throw on the fire....

Logistically speaking, in a single-player DG like this, the election cycle cannot easily be done in a Turn-based cycle without some suspension of play.

The election process can last anywhere from 7 to 9 days: 2-3 days for nominations, 2-3 days for debates, 3 days for voting. If there is a run-off, it will last even longer.

This schedule will make it very difficult to coordinate elections with the game progress if we base our election cycle on a set number of turns. In the multiplayer demogame, where the pace blisters along at anywhere from 2 turns a week to 1 turn a day, it is not impossible to schedule elections on a specific game turn. However, in a single player demogame, where we can have up to 20 turns (or more) in a single week, scheduling will become quite tricky.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by DaveShack
The whole reason turn-based was suggested in the first place was that we had a period where the President seemed bent on getting in a certain number of turns regardless of forum participation or whether common sense indicated that additional discussion time remained. The thought was that if some of the pressure to finish by a certain date were removed, the President would be more likely to accept stoppages.

That's plain outright boloney. Your insinuation is that turn based terms were suggested because of DG3 term 3. I've been suggesting turn based terms since DG2 - long before my stint as president in DG3 where I played 10 turns twice a week for a month. I also resent the insinuation that I was *bent on getting in a certain number of turns regardless of forum participation or whether common sense indicated that additional discussion time remained." At no timeduring term three did anything unexpected and serious occur. There never was a Civ III game related reason to stop a chat in term 3. As for forum participation, Donovan Zoi had cancelled the last chat of term two due to lack of participation and that did not increase forum participation. I learned way back in DG1 that not playing turns does not bring back forum participation.

By using turn based terms our elected officials would know from the start how many turns they have to work with. They can use that knowledge as a fraamework upon which to design the goals for their term. It seems to me that planning for the term would be easier.

As for the reasons given not to have turn based terms, all I can say is why can't you people use your heads? No, I can say more than that. Quit your whining! Oh, if we have turn based terms then someone who wants to be president forever can just play one turn a month! Oh, if someone plays more than 20 turns their term may be only 2 weeks! For crying out loud, is it really too difficult to make a rule that says:

There must be two game play sessions per week.
No more than 10 turns per game play session.

You are all so quit to shoot an idea down because something might happen but you're all unwilling to make any rules to prevent that something!

As for luring players back because they know when to come and vote, I say we're better off without 'em! If all they do if stop by once a month to vote - without bothering to see what was done by those they voted for - we don't need 'em in the demo game. If you want higher participation in the demogame then take away the power of the chat goers, give it back to the forum goers and make the Civ III game information readily available on the forums. People lose interest in the demogame because they can't see what's going on in the game and / or they feel they have no say in what happens in the game.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

........or they feel they have no say in what happens in the game.

Ironic way to end that tirade, donsig. Also I noticed that you neglected to offer a minimum turn requirement for the gameplay session. Should there be one?

FortyJ has pretty much summed up what I have been saying all along, and has even added more good points regarding the election process.

Calendar-based terms are the way to go --- for practicality, simplicity and fairness.

If anyone is swayed dy donsig's arguments, please speak up now. Otherwise, if no one objects, I will post a poll on this later tonight.

 

[Bootstoots]

I also agree with Forty. Let's keep calendar-based terms.

@donsig - I think that most of us are pretty well aware that this has nothing to do with the Term 3 incident.

@DZ - Go ahead and start the poll.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Ironic way to end that tirade, donsig. Also I noticed that you neglected to offer a minimum turn requirement for the gameplay session. Should there be one?

No, I didn't offer a minimum turn requirement, it was just an example. I've been thinking for quite awhile now that we should have a fixed schedule for play - we should play x number of turns in y amount of time, come Hell or High Water. It's the only way to get us in the mindset of planning ahead.

The end of my post may seem ironic to you DZ but there was a thread way back in DG1 about why we lost people. Many who wandered into the demogame did not stay because they felt the decisions were all being made in the chat. Nothing has changed. Unless you can come up with a system where we can give forum posters and chat attendees equal voice - then I will remain on the side of the forum posters. I have no sympathy for those who attend the chat and do not post in the forums. They have the opportunity to post in the forums but many times disregard the forums because they will be at the chat, whereas many forum posters cannot be at the chats.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I too will always side with the forum posters. No argument there.

I am still wracking my brain for a reasonable resolution of the two. I know that one exists; it just hasn't come to me yet.

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by donsig
Unless you can come up with a system where we can give forum posters and chat attendees equal voice - then I will remain on the side of the forum posters.

Thank you donsig. This statement perfectly crystalized the whole debate for me on the issue of chat vs forum. Let me explain...

First of all, the "chat-goers" are not mutually exclusive of the "forum-goers" and vice versa. The so-called "chat-goers" already possess all of the power (aka voice) of the "forum-goers" in that they too can post their opinions and participate in polls within the forums. By definition, the "forum-goers" are not in attendance at the chats, and therefore would not be priviledge to any decisions made exclusively at the chat.

By adding any additional power to those in attendance at the chat, we are, in effect, creating an elite class of citizenry. This is very undemocratic.

The only fair solution to this matter is to remove all decision-making authority from the chat attendees. The chats should be open to all citizens (as a democratic form of government should), but the citizens in attendance should have no voice in any decisions made at the chat. The DP should be allowed to poll the attendees, but that polling should be considered advisory in nature - not compulsory.

There is no happy meeting ground where the "chat-goers" have equal voice with the "forum-goers" as long as we continue to grant those at the chat any authority to override the decisions of all citizens made in the forums.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

OK, poll has finally been posted.

Turn/Calendar Based Terms

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig
I also resent the insinuation that I was "bent on getting in a certain number of turns regardless of forum participation or whether common sense indicated that additional discussion time remained."

donsig,

Sorry, I did not intend to offend you.

Actually, I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to paraphrase your own posts on this issue. Your statements in favor of turn based made me think about the idea that DP's rush through turns in order to get their "quota" in, and it sounded like a good argument to have a turn-based component to the length of the turn -- so on this issue my objective was to be on your "side".

It looks like although there are good reasons to have a turn-based component to term length, there doesn't seem to be any way to make the logistics work.

 

[donsig]

The poll seems to be against turn based terms, once again. You know, if we made a schedule to game play sessions ahead of time and fixed the number of turns to be played every session (no matter what) then we would not only give each term the same number of turns but we'd also make the *when to stop a chat* issue moot.

Is it worth considering making a rule saying something like: game play sessions to be held twice a week, exactly 5 turns to be played each session.

 

[FortyJ]

I fear that such a change in the dynamics of the turn chat would minimize the DPs ability to protect the rights of the citizens not in attendance at the chat.

Of course, this will return us all to the debate about whether or not events in the turn chat are truly unexpected, but in the event that something does come up during the chat that was not planned for in the forums, a rule establishing a fixed number of turns would almost force the DP to betray the trust placed in him by those of us not present at the chat. Specifically, the DP would likely have to rely on self-judgement to make spot decisions on issues that have historically been "taken to the forums" for approriate discussion. Either that, or we should once again consider empowering the chat attendees with the authority to make decisions for the entirety of the population.

 

[donsig]

Then again, if we all know that a given number of turns will be played no matter what, we just may end up actually doing some planning.