Editing the Chain of Command

[Strider]

Currently, the CoC is lacking, as proven recently. I propose that we add the deputies of the departments in there. This almost eliminates any chance of one of the CoC not being there.

Here is the current CoC:

a. President
b. Vice President
c. Minister of Internal Affairs
d. Minister of Defense
e. Minister of Foreign Affairs
f. Minister of Trade and Technology

 

[Sarevok]

We should add deputy positions in that order after that. CT's CC was completely pointless to happen and that ought to not happen again but with this current CoC it will.

 

[Chieftess]

Definately. Back in the old days, it went like this:

{} <-- = subset, in this order {President, Domestic, Military, FA, Science, Trade, Culture }

Leaders {}, Deputies {}, Chat Reps {}, Judiciary, Governors, Deputy Govenors, Citizens.

I think only once, or twice, a governor played the save. I don't think it got down as far as a citizen.

Anyway, this is to keep the game moving.

Suppose we had another president who had "0'dark 30" chats. Remember those? Only a few could make it (at the most, 2-3 people). What if one was a governor, and the other was a chat rep? The game wouldn't be able to continue if say, the president had to leave in the middle of the chat. (he can't say on turn 2, "Ok, I have to leave, the save will be passed to the governor".

The CoC was designed to help keep the game moving in this situation.

 

[Sarevok]

and with how this DG is going, thats not whats happening at all.

 

[ravensfire]

Already had this discussion once.

Does this mean we can start bringing back old discussions that didn't go the way we wanted? Cool - I've got a few ideas ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

umm, that was 2 months ago. Things change. What are you saying now? That us citizens CAN'T have a voice? This isn't "Ravensfire and Cyc's Demogame". Some citizens might not see what effect it has until something happens. Some, like me, were dragged in here after the game had already started. You are pretty much denying our right to be heard by attacking our thread. How about I CC you for denying me to questioning a law in the books?

 

[Sarevok]

the CoC is too limiting, deputies ought to be allowed if no people are there, as it was last TC and CT was CCed for it.

 

[Chieftess]

Also, let me put it this way (and please don't be snobbish and sarcastic about it). Citizens can put forth a proposal, and after a discussion, have a vote on whether or not to pass it. It's that simple. You're just making things more complex than they have to be. We have to remember that this is in a forum that revolves around Civ3 (and Civ2), so it has to be geared more towards the game. Right now, we're just all geared around the rules, and any little thing that goes wrong stall the game. Would you rather have a demogame where no turnchats were played for the entire term because one of a myriad of little things were wrong? That doesn't sound like a game I want to waste my time reading and participating in, not knowing if term X is going to last 90 turns, or 90 seconds.

 

[Sarevok]

and 90 turns has not been the case. Therefore to make sure this game gets moving along, we need to let deputies be able to take over after the ones in the executive branch. These legal squabbles are getting us nowhere and they need to end... now.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

The current CoC is designed to keep someone from playing who may not be familiar with all pertinent aspects of the game.

I remember a deputy that became the "trickle-down default DP" in DG2 that had "worker issues" through using foreign workers to mine 1 mountain each(18 turns IIRC) in tiles that couldn't even be used by a nearby city!

So it goes both ways. And I like this way much better. Only elected officials should be allowed to forward the game --- that's just common sense.

In the future, I would ask that our President have a DP in mind from the standing CoC. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with the CoC as written in our laws.

 

[Peri]

We don't need a large CoC - it serves no useful purpose. If the branch charged with executing the will of the people is unable to play the game, we should simply cancel the session.

That is a quote from RF and he is absolutely right on all counts. However no one forsaw the sort of mess we are in now
We could lengthen the CoC to include more people but surely it would be better to ensure that there is always more than one member of the elected Executive present or indeed actually making it clear in the TCIT that the save is to be cancelled if no one shows up from the elected government.

By doing that we can avoid any misunderstandings. Also cancelled chats should be rescheduled within the term so we don't lose momentum

Any thoughts?

 

[Shalashaska]

If the president gets to set when the turnchats are, cant they just set them for when they are avaliable. or vice if the presidents on holiday or military if mobolized(is this the way it still is.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Originally posted by Peri
We could lengthen the CoC to include more people but surely it would be better to ensure that there is always more than one member of the elected Executive present or indeed actually making it clear in the TCIT that the save is to be cancelled if no one shows up from the elected government.

Chat ops are elected. Do they count as "qualified to play" ?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
Chat ops are elected. Do they count as "qualified to play" ?

I don't see Chat Ops listed in the first post so........Nope.

 

[Chieftess]

Deputies *SHOULD* know what's going on. If they don't, then they're not doing their jobs. I'm in constant communication with Sarevok. On the worker example, that's different than "understanding what's going on in the game", it's more of an understanding of how the game works and the tactics used. Even when Oct and CG were high up on the totem poll in DG2, they made a couple of mistakes with workers in DG2. The CoC should ATLEAST include deputies.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Chieftess
umm, that was 2 months ago. Things change. What are you saying now? That us citizens CAN'T have a voice? This isn't "Ravensfire and Cyc's Demogame". Some citizens might not see what effect it has until something happens. Some, like me, were dragged in here after the game had already started. You are pretty much denying our right to be heard by attacking our thread. How about I CC you for denying me to questioning a law in the books?

So now you're saying that *I* can't have a voice on this? That *I* can't express my viewpoint? So it's now "Chieftess' Demogame"?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

CT - here's what I object to - a proposal that I don't like, that I don't think we need. It so happens that we've already had this discussion once, and I'm bringing that backup. If you don't like that - no offense, but too bad.

And if you want to CC me on that - bring it on. Where have I denied you anything - no where. You seem to have this idea that anything opposing a proposal is bad - far from it. Proposals need input, both good and bad, from citizens. If someone doesn't like an idea - I absolutely expect them to say so. It's happened to ideas I've had.

Drop the drama, and focus on the issue.

-- Ravensfire

 

[tao]

I think we have to act in order to not run into limbo again. However I see the problem. Our game is in its early stages and regrettably the turnchat instructions sometimes are not "complete". Thus an ill-prepared Deputy might create havoc. (Note: I don't mean Chieftess)

What we really have to do is encourage the CoC people to have a presence during the turnchat. They should be collectively responsible that at least one of them participates well prepared. If they fail to do so, IMHO they should be collectively exclude from running in next term's elections.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by tao
What we really have to do is encourage the CoC people to have a presence during the turnchat. They should be collectively responsible that at least one of them participates well prepared. If they fail to do so, IMHO they should be collectively exclude from running in next term's elections.

And that's a great answer! Actions have consequences - both good and bad. The debates are a great place to bring up points about how incumbents performed - both good and bad points. I wouldn't exclude anyone just because they did a bad job, but I would hammer them about it in the nomination and election threads ....

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

Lemme show you an example of what culture should have been doing. Here is an image of a succession game I'm in.

This is a quick pixel-counted (just draw a line from point A to point B and add 1, since it starts at 0). culture graph. Sometime around 200AD, we captured Berlin, and the Temple of Artemis (which gives free temples in C3C). From this graph alone, culture should be saying, "Germany's culture is by far much higher, and we need to take measures so that the cities don't flip back. I advise that we build workers non-stop, and not let those cities grow, or even starve them to size one.".

Fast forward to 460AD, where we're about to take the Mongols last city. Culture will first notice that everyone is gaining on Germany. Also, other civs have education, which means that they're probably building universities, and/or have just built them. (or building cathedrals, too). Culture would want to watch what happens when the Mongols are eliminated, since we're so close to domination. (We don't want to lose one of our huge stacks of knights, medival infantry, and swiss pikes).

That is what culture would be doing if that were a demogame.

 

[GenMarshall]

Having the deputies in the CoC will make the game run smoothly. Also, in my experience as a Deputy (When they were in the CoC), It motivated me to climb the CoC.