DG5 Constitution: General Discussion

[Noldodan]

First of all, the hypothetical scenario you describe could be prevented by making a specific rule limiting the number of turns that can be played per game play session. Such a rule can be easily made without resorting to a three tiered legal structure that is so cumbersome no one understands all its ramifications. Such a rule is also very much preferable to giving a handful of chat attendees power to stop game play just because something happens that they don't happen to like.

Secondly, as to your historical scenario, I'd like to make two points (again):

1) I did not declare war on the Aztecs, the Aztecs declared war on our country when I refused their demands to remove our troops from what I considered to be our territory.

2) I agree that wars should be planned for. I would go further and say that many, many other things in the demogame should be planned for. Such as, what do we do if these Aztec settlers squat and build a city on land we've already claimed? But what do we do when no one plans? Stop playing? Maybe that's what you'd have done in term three. I looked at the posts in the forum, based my decision on those and moved ahead. Unfortunately, it happened that those at the chat did not agree with what had been posted in the forums and proceeded to raise bloody heck - which still hasn't died down, judging by the fact that it is still brought up. So, my point here is this: the decision that lead to the war was not unilateral but based on posts made in this thread concerning possible Aztec settlement. (BTW, I pointed out that very thread to YOU (Noldodan) when you asked how the war started. Perhaps now that tempers have subsided over this ( ) you will go back and read the thread.)

Anything else I need to refute (again)?

Alrighty. In response to your first paragraph: Good idea. But I say we have that AND a method of stopping the chat in case something major happens. Now, as to your other points: You made the choice of whether or not the Aztecs would declare war on us. To me, that's as good as declaring the war yourself. As to why you declared it, I have stated (I know I did it somewhere, maybe in a chat) that I do not personally think the war decision was wrong. I do believe, however, that your subsequent actions in the chat were wrong, most of all continuing the chat.

 

[Immortal]

Ive spent the last 2 days working with the three books, and Ive managed to condense them into a consititution about 3 pages on size 12 font, it still needs some work, it needs to be expanded on the forum outline and on the leader definition segments but I consider it rather coherant. It is 15 articles in size (two more than DG2? I cant remember). Once I organize it I can PM it to whoever wants a look.

 

[Immortal]

Here is the most absolute bare minimum constitution/rule book I could write, it hasnt been proof-read fully so the grammer sucks, some sections are not complete as we havent decided upon what they will say, and the formatting is absolutely horrible. But the rules are there, allbeit in their barest forms.

Criticize my work!

Remember, always scan an attachment before opening it, and Im out for the rest of the night, so Ill see your replies tomorrow afternoon MAYBE! Depending on how much time my dad spends off the golf course tomorrow.

 

[Noldodan]

Immortal, our country may yet be either Fanatika or Phoentica, but certainly not both at once!

But on a serious note, there are several things in your proposal that have not yet been decided, and really need to. I spotted the following: Quorum, the method of passing new laws, Judicial structure, PI process, the election process, and how turn chats will be run. These things really need to be decided, whether here or in a CoL, before we discuss a final Constitution.

 

[Immortal]

I told you I havent proof-read it fully!


Final? HA! I havent taken the time to finish writing it yet!

 

[GenMarshall]

I told you I havent proof-read it fully!


Final? HA! I havent taken the time to finish writing it yet!

Heh, so thats why my MS Word kept on picking up Grammar and Spelling errors .

 

[DaveShack]

First of all, the hypothetical scenario you describe could be prevented by making a specific rule limiting the number of turns that can be played per game play session. Such a rule can be easily made without resorting to a three tiered legal structure that is so cumbersome no one understands all its ramifications. Such a rule is also very much preferable to giving a handful of chat attendees power to stop game play just because something happens that they don't happen to like.

Secondly, as to your historical scenario, I'd like to make two points (again):
[snip]
2) I agree that wars should be planned for. I would go further and say that many, many other things in the demogame should be planned for. Such as, what do we do if these Aztec settlers squat and build a city on land we've already claimed? But what do we do when no one plans? Stop playing?

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules. You constantly say we don't need a rule which forces play to stop because we can trust the President / DP to do what is right. You're also the living proof that we can't rely on trust alone to stop play when it needs to be discussed in the forums. To restate the obvious, the real problem in DG3T3 was with continuing play after war was declared. Also it is pretty clear that instructions can be manipulated to get the result the DP wants, though manipulating instructions to start a war is the last thing I'd expect from one of our most prominent doves.

There are still 3 options we need to consider for unplanned conditions:

• Rules which force play to stop
• A means to democratically force play to stop during the chat.
• Trust the DP to make the right decision.

I'm not willing to make the 3rd option be the only way to handle unplanned events. We must either have rules to stop play, or a mechanism to make it the decision of more than one person.

 

[Sarevok]

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules. You constantly say we don't need a rule which forces play to stop because we can trust the President / DP to do what is right. You're also the living proof that we can't rely on trust alone to stop play when it needs to be discussed in the forums. To restate the obvious, the real problem in DG3T3 was with continuing play after war was declared. Also it is pretty clear that instructions can be manipulated to get the result the DP wants, though manipulating instructions to start a war is the last thing I'd expect from one of our most prominent doves.

There are still 3 options we need to consider for unplanned conditions:

• Rules which force play to stop
• A means to democratically force play to stop during the chat.
• Trust the DP to make the right decision.

I'm not willing to make the 3rd option be the only way to handle unplanned events. We must either have rules to stop play, or a mechanism to make it the decision of more than one person.

Thats right donsig!

I completely agree with you Daveshack. We cannot have at any time a situation like DG3T3. Though I would join at DG3T6, I have heard enough about this situation to know what happened and I have read the threads about it. I know full well that is a situation we do not want to deal with ever again and we should take every countermeasure in order to make that so.

 

[donsig]

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules.

Yes, I am a proponent of stopping play when something that is truly unexpected happens. Let me make my self clear on this part. I mean when something truly unexpected to the demogame community as a whole crops up - not when something happens that is not foreseen by those who happen to be at the chat. Someday, maybe many years from now - after some of us have matured a bit and can look back at the history of DG3 in a somewhat detached way, we will be able to see that the war with the Aztecs was not an unexpected thing. As pointed out earlier in this thread there was a thread started by the foreign minister asking for input on a possible war. Anyone paying attention to the game would have known that there was an Aztec settler we were trying to block and if said settler built a city we'd have units within the city radius which Monty might have demanded be withdrawn. This was not *minor details* that could have been easily overlooked. In fact it was not overlooked and the aforementioned thread showed support for a war. Once the war came there was no point in stopping play. This was not a scary war. We had just built a formidable army to deal with Egypt. It was routine.

The problem was that those who attended the chat regularly had gotten in the habit of voicing their opinions in the chat rather than in the forums. By not asking for their advice during the chats I pissed them off and that (or rather their reaction to that) was the problem with term three of DG3, not a DP who would not stop and take things to the forums. If something truly unexpected had occurred I would certainly have stopped play. I had fought hard for the DP's right to stop play in DG1. There just was no need to do so in DG3 term three.

So, once again, I suggest we let the DP use his or her discretion when it comes to stopping play. I would add a limit to the number of turns that could be played per chat but that's it. Elect a preseident and give him or her a chance to do the job. If they do not do it to your satisfaction then don't vote for them again. But don't give extra power to those who are lucky enough to attend the chats.

As for the three things on your list DaveShack, the trouble lies in defining what is unplanned. Is it something none of us thought of? Is it something some of us didn't think about? Is it something one of us (like a leader) didn't think of? What criteria would you use to define something as unplanned? Without knowing that I could not agree to any hard rules that force play to stop.

 

[DaveShack]

As for the three things on your list DaveShack, the trouble lies in defining what is unplanned. Is it something none of us thought of? Is it something some of us didn't think about? Is it something one of us (like a leader) didn't think of? What criteria would you use to define something as unplanned? Without knowing that I could not agree to any hard rules that force play to stop.

I'm arguing this point to try to point out the absurdity of not allowing trivial changes during the chat on the grounds that it "devoices" the people who are in the forums only. We have people crying about being disenfranchised by others "wielding power" during the chat, and the same people who advocate taking away all chat powers are also advocating other policies which disenfranchise forum goers, in an even worse way.

Example: FA Instructions say don't declare war. Military instructions have no war contingencies. Someone declares war on us -- this should require an immediate stoppage of play and return to the forum for discussion. We should not require our leaders to plan things both ways, with a peacetime and wartime plan for every chat. It doesn't matter how minor or trivial conduct of the war seems to be, to continue in this circumstance takes away the voices of the people in exactly the same way as the anti-chat movement consistently argues against as evidence against making trivial changes in chat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if we disallow the ability of more than one person to change directions, then we must disallow the ability of one person to make changes, and the DP should not be allowed to proceed if the game goes a different direction than the direction which was planned for.

 

[donsig]

I'm arguing this point to try to point out the absurdity of not allowing trivial changes during the chat on the grounds that it "devoices" the people who are in the forums only. We have people crying about being disenfranchised by others "wielding power" during the chat, and the same people who advocate taking away all chat powers are also advocating other policies which disenfranchise forum goers, in an even worse way.

Example: FA Instructions say don't declare war. Military instructions have no war contingencies. Someone declares war on us -- this should require an immediate stoppage of play and return to the forum for discussion. We should not require our leaders to plan things both ways, with a peacetime and wartime plan for every chat. It doesn't matter how minor or trivial conduct of the war seems to be, to continue in this circumstance takes away the voices of the people in exactly the same way as the anti-chat movement consistently argues against as evidence against making trivial changes in chat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if we disallow the ability of more than one person to change directions, then we must disallow the ability of one person to make changes, and the DP should not be allowed to proceed if the game goes a different direction than the direction which was planned for.

Just who will decide what is or is not a trivial change? Seems to me that would have to be decided by someone at the chat, or am I missing something? BTW, if it's trivial why do we need to change it? If it's trivial why can't the DP just do what is in the posted instructions and move on?

As for your example, I do not agree that an unexpected declaration of war should force an immediate stoppage of play. Some wars in Civ III are truly trivial and there's no point in stopping play if we find ourselves in one of them. By allowing the DP to use his or her discretion whether to continue playing or not does not *devoice* anyone. We elected the DP collectively to make *some* decisions for us. Letting the DP do the DP's job is not the same as letting some people at the chat make changes to posted instructions.

I do agree with you that we should not allow the DP to make changes to posted instructions. Both Rik Meleet and Chieftess did that as DP. I requested a CC against RM and volunterred to act as prosecutor in the CC against CT. Unfortunately, our judiciary and citizens as a whole did not think these to be worthwhile.

Changing instructions is quite different from making a decision in the absence of instructions. I also agree that leaders should not be forced to plan for each and every possibility. They should however plan for those scenarios that are more than just unlikely possibilities. In they event they don't, we elect a President to make decisions for us. Yes, by all means we want play stopped if a BIG and UNFORESEEN decision rears it head. But if the decision is trivial, or if the scenario has been discussed then let the DP do his or her job and play the game.

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: The increasingly personal tone of some of these posts is disruptive. You will stop even mentioning each other in your posts or disciplinary action will follow. This warning applies to DaveShack, donsig, and Sarevok particularly, but I suggest you all take heed of it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[DaveShack]

This is really quite simple. Give me a rule which allows simple changes to posted instructions, preferably by the same leader who posted the wrong instruction or by a majority at the chat or by a standing rule about what can be changed, and I'll be happy. The instruction to pop the hut in DG4 T1 is an example of where this would be used. If there is anyone who honestly thinks popping that hut and thereby getting our warrior killed and capitol sacked was a good thing, I'll consider modifying my position on this part of the issue.

Give me a rule which forces play stoppage when there is reason to believe that some number of players might like to discuss current events in the forums (would 10% of the census be enough?), and I'll be happy. Leave the specific examples out of this, and stick with the general issue instead. In general practice, how much dissent during a discussion do we normally use as the cutoff point before a poll should be used? Even one comment, if a particularily relevant one, is sufficient to force most issues to a poll.

If I were in the position of DP and someone demands a stoppage because things have changed, I'm leaning towards pretty much always stopping. I don't care if I only get in 8 turns in a term, my focus is on a fun game for all, not to "make my mark" while in the driver's seat.

 

[donsig]

This is really quite simple. Give me a rule which allows simple changes to posted instructions, preferably by the same leader who posted the wrong instruction or by a majority at the chat or by a standing rule about what can be changed, and I'll be happy. The instruction to pop the hut in DG4 T1 is an example of where this would be used. If there is anyone who honestly thinks popping that hut and thereby getting our warrior killed and capitol sacked was a good thing, I'll consider modifying my position on this part of the issue.

If a leader can't get good instructions posted in the forum why should we assume he or she can give good instructions in the chat? By allowing leaders to post instructions in the game play instruction thread and then change them at will in the chat we undermine the whole idea behind the instruction thread. (That idea is that instructions are recorded ahead of time so we all have a chance to see them and have a good idea of what will take place in the game even if we cannot be at the chat.) By allowing changes to be made in the chat we risk a leader or leaders being bullied/coerced/talked into making changes they don't want. We also risk last minute polls like some of the ones we had back in DG1.

Popping the hut in term one was not a good thing. But it was not a devastating thing either. We won the game didn't we? So we made some mistakes along the way, like popping a hut (or not optimizing the sliders or the build queues). So what?

Everyone seems to remember the Aztec war of term 3, DG3. Who remembers us trying to build Copernicus' Observatory in Memphis that same term? We had it in our grasp but instructions were posted to change to a cathedral and then restart the wonder. As a citizen I disagreed with the plan. As DP I (reluctantly) followed the plan and someone beat us to Copernicus. Should I have been allowed to change (or convince the appropriate leader to change) that instruction? We would have gotten Copernicus built - but would we still have beeen able to (legitimately) call this a democracy game?

 

[donsig]

If I were in the position of DP and someone demands a stoppage because things have changed, I'm leaning towards pretty much always stopping. I don't care if I only get in 8 turns in a term, my focus is on a fun game for all, not to "make my mark" while in the driver's seat.

Rather than force a rule on the rest of us why don't you run for President? If you don't want to do that you can make apoint of asking those who do run how they would handle unexpected things at the chat and place your vote accordingly.

Given eyrei's earlier post I will refrain from replying to the "make my mark" part of your post.

BTW, I personally do not see what promted your warning eyrei.

 

[DaveShack]

If the President / DP sees something which needs to be changed, he/she can stop play and go back to the forum to allow it to be discussed. It's actually a little bit amazing that we haven't had any notable incidents of a DP who doesn't like an instruction so stops play to get clarification or time to get it changed.

Given that we have at least one individual with the power to force a play stoppage (the DP), the same ability should be given to everyone else. What can it possibly hurt to stop play and discuss something in the forums? Just because the person who is currently running the save doesn't want to stop, when potentially everyone else present does want to stop, we're forced to endure play continuing without discussion?

Sure, with a limit on the duration of sessions at 10 turns, we're protected a little bit, but what about things which change during the preturn of turn 0? If play continues, the point which needed discussion may already be history by the time the scheduled 10 turns are up.

It's possible to get a warning (or worse) by commenting on a warning, so I won't do that...

However I will repeat something I've said in the past in slightly different words. I may disagree vehemently with someone's position but that's as far as it ever goes -- and I'm just as likely to agree as not to agree with that person's position on another subject Sorry if anyone saw it differently, and I haven't seen anything from others in this thread that I'd complain about, just healthy clean debate.

 

[DaveShack]

Rather than force a rule on the rest of us why don't you run for President?

I might just be leaning that direction.

Hope people don't mind 22:30 to 00:30 Mountain Standard (Pacific Daylight, UTC-7) as a chat time, I have 2 children and work a 10 hour day on average, and this is the only 2 hours a day I have to play civ.

With the right VP and ruleset I'd probably be willing to alternate sessions, or even run split sessions -- plan for 10, play it in two 5 turn sets.

However, we need to compromise on some rules before anyone will be running for President, or any office for that matter. I've made several offers toward middle ground on stoppages (setting a quorum based on the current census for example) and would be willing to entertain limiting instruction changes to specific situations.

As a general comment, although we each may feel very strongly about one extreme or the other on particular issues, true democracy is best practiced by negotiating agreements toward the center. Everyone is encouraged to suggest a solution.

 

[Inter4]

So, when's DGV gonna start?

 

[Black_Hole]

So, when's DGV gonna start?

usually on the first of a month, so whenever we get everything done... im thinking August 1st or Sept. 1st

 

[Immortal]

Im slightly confused by one thing: we say we dont want to give the DP powers to continue the turn chat when he/she sees fit to do so, yet those in the turn-chat should be allowed to force an end to the turnchat when they see fit.

Why are non-elected officials to be granted powers beyond our highest elected official?