Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by DaveShack, Jun 5, 2004.
The answer is right in our Constitution. Elected officials must follow the will of the people.
the will of the chat room is not the will of the people.
Now that is a confuse point.
If we consider a spot vote the will of the people (given a certain quorum), it could be...
PS.: could we get the constitution finished and adopted A.S.A.P.? I mean, well, two months between games realy killed the beginning of DG3 (or four, or both, as you wish), and I fear that it's going to be the same now. If we can get the constitutionnal bickering settled now, we can get the laws (because we need some of these too) tuned. If we can do this in 2 weeks, we could try to get the elections on July 15th (could try an half term to get things running[with ad hoc legislation]).
Think about it, the sooner, the better.
I agree with Fire Canadien. DG4 realy laged in citizen partisipation due because we had such a lengthy time discussing rules which is a big turn off to many of the users.
another major problem is the long drawn out set of rules we had.
Speaking bluntly, our legal documents were grossly oversized, needlessly so. This is what is holding us up, talks have stalled, and something needs to be done. Yet I see few people doing anything about it. As noldodan said when I posted my outlined constitution, many things have not been agreed upon, and the snails pace we are working at is not helping anything. Someone needs to come forward, as I did, with what they believe is a good rule set, and others need to outline what changes should be done in it.
We are sitting right now with no constitution, nothing to work with, and no discussion.
We had several times in DG4 where the leader posted instructions, and then wanted to change them during the chat. The president, 100% of the people at the chat, and as far as I could tell 100% of the people in the forums thought the actual instructions should have been changed, from the in-game perspective. The only argument against changing the instructions was that the rules didn't allow it. All I'm trying to do is fix this problem, with the added benefit that the game will be more fun (for most). I'll admit there will be a few people who don't like it. I don't understand why, though I'm guessing it must be something historical.
Make an offer, anything away from the extreme position that the chat is nothing more than a diversion. Let those of us who are here to have fun, have fun. If you don't think the chat is fun then have fun in the game some other way, as long as taking away our fun is not the way you have fun.
Well, had I been at those chat's I would have argued that the instructions not be changed. Since I can't be at all the chats I can't be there to say that now can I? I would always argue that instructions should not be changed unless every demogame participant was present at the chat to place his or her vote in a spot vote. It's not right to disregard someone's vote just because they can't be at the chat.
I'm tired of having to make the same point over and over again about this. Those of you who attend the chats regularly really need to back off and quit trying to force changes to posted instructions this way. If you want to have fun playing a chat based demogame then go play one but leave this a forum based demogame.
The *fix* for the problem is not giving anyone (be it chat attendee, leader or DP) the power to change or ignore posted instructions. The *fix* is paying attention to discussions and polls in the forums and monitoring the instructions that our elected leaders post. (And a healthy dose of living with minor imperfections in the instructions wouldn't hurt either.)
Now we're getting somewhere (though it may not seem like it yet...)
I will accept restrictions on changes to instructions which respect the decisions made in the forum. I'm willing to live with chat-based instructions for certain circumstances for which there is no forum decision or if the forum decision has not been correctly communicated:
There is no posted instruction, and the leader or deputy wants to "post" the instruction in the chat.
There are no instructions, the leader / deputy are not present, and the WOTP is unknown, in which case we are faced with a choice between the DP decides unilaterally, the participants at the chat vote, or the DP is required to stop and take it back to the forum.
An item comes up which is not covered by instructions, and the majority at the chat want to stop and decide in the forum.
Think about these specific cases, especially the ones where the leader would be allowed to change his/her own instruction. What if the instruction was not based on citizen input in the first place? Especially if the leader in question asked for input and didn't get any, but this is equally valid if the leader did not ask for input for a specific instruction and nobody offered any input. Whose vote is being violated by changing the instruction?
So just who decides which decisions were actually made in the forums? Oh, I see, we let those at the chat decide that.
If no forum decison was made the respective leaders still have the responsibility to post instructions that are needed. If a leader posts a poll and no one votes then the leader should step up and made a decision and post the instruction. If a forum decision is evenly split the leader breaks the tie and posts the instruction. If no forum decision is made and the leader also fails to post an instruction then the DP steps up and makes the decision.
If a forum decision is incorrectly communicated in the posted instructions then we must still live with it. Remember the DP can always stop play to get something corrected if need be. This is a point where posting instructions ahead of time, for all to see would be good. Then the error could be pointed out and corrected before the game play session.
If neither the leader nor deputy can post instructions we ought to be canning them rather than letting give orders in the chat.
No forum decision, no instruction? Simple. Le t the President play the darn game. That's what we elected him (or her) for!
Letting those at the chat stop game play because of lack of instructions gives them a powerful tool. All they have to do is find one thing not covered by the instructions and they can force a stoppage of play if they want to. All the DP has to do is get on the wrong side of a few at the chat and they can start calling for play to stop for trivial things. Why open this up to them?
Since discussion seems to be limited to a few hotly contested areas, I'm going to start posting ratification polls on the articles which are not contested.
edit in a list here later
How about a new discussion here, concerning elections. There is only one thing that we've ever seriously debated about elections, and we haven't resolved it for this ruleset yet: how many elections you can run in. I would personally like having it be that you can run in two elections, but if you do, you must clearly state which position you would take if you win both.
That is kind of a non-issue. The election system worked well in DG4, the best thing in the whole game. Basically I think they should stay how they are: 1 nomination per person each term's elections. That way it gives a chance for new players to be able to go into officies as vet players arent being nominiated and accepting every position in the game.
This is true, but there is another issue. In Term 5 of DGIV, there were 2 contested elections out of 17 positions! Sure, we had 10 provinces, but that's still bad. We should have it that at least 80% of the elections are contested.
Separate names with a comma.