Kill the longbow?

[donsig]

Well, I've seen enough to cast my vote. I have abstained.

First of all, I am (again) disgusted that we have a moderator throwing his weight around again in the demogame. DaveShack, this is your (supposedly) citizen's poll about an issue you are concerned with and yet you step in with mod tags. If there have been comments in this thread that were blanant flaming or trolling would it have been difficult (as a citizen / forum member) to point them out to a mod who is not involved in the demogame? I am not surprised there have been references to dictators in this thread given the fact that you first post a very bad poll and then use you mod powers to stifle debate about it.

I'm a bit out of touch with my demogame laws but I'm going to ask the appropriate authorities to invalidate this poll. I'm not sure what technical grounds to use but the wording of the poll is to kill the longbow. No posted instruction(s) can guarantee that since the fate of an attack is up to the RNG.

Moderator Action: This is PDMA. If you have an issue with mod actions take it up with them directly via PM, or report the post via the 'report post' function and all mods will see it. It is not an item for public discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Provolution]

I agree, this poll is more or less invalid, but then again, that is up to the local politics here, more than the so-called "law" itself.

 

[donsig]

I have asked that this poll be invalidated here.

I have also asked that the game play session be delayed here.

 

[grant2004]

Donsig I think if you were to read the other forums rather than just the poll section you'd find that Daveshack is not being the least bit unfair in this poll. There was huge citizen support for a move against this longbow but the warlord refused to make any such move, he now says that that was clearly what he intended all along but that is certainly not the case as I noticed no indication of that until yesterday.

Daveshack's poll is an attempt to force an elected official to listen to citizen input, a type of poll that should never be necessary but sadly was for this issue.

Daveshack may be a mod but I don't see him using any moderator powers here, he hasn't changed any text he hasn't hidden posts he's simply posted his point of view. I pray that the courts will have the wisdom to validate this poll otherwise drastic courses of action will be necessary to make sure that citizen input is respected.

 

[Provolution]

Take it easy Grant, I will attack the Longbow, however, this would happen with or without the life of this poll.

 

[Methos]

however, this would happen with or without the life of this poll.

I hope by the above you are not saying you would go against citizen wishes and a binding poll.

 

[Provolution]

No, the longbowman will be attacked by the Keshik, but not as a result primarily by this poll alone. Even if this poll is invalidated by the court, I will still attack the keshik. But we cannot have polls "Killing longbows" that is for the RNG to decide.

 

[Methos]

If this poll is invalidated, I would move for an immediate rewording of the question into a new poll that would close prior to the upcoming turnchat. The new poll would be based off the OP's intended question.

Hopefully the high court will move quickly on donsig's request, so we can either complete this poll, or create a new one.

 

[Provolution]

Methos, we reached a joint agreement, frankly put, we do not need this poll at all, any longer. Whatever the reason, this poll came up too quick and too wrong.
So please, let us go on with our work, kill the keshik and go on with it.

So , this poll was poor craftsmanship, both language-wise and politically, like my failure to properly discuss the bridge situation was poor craftsmanship.
Setting up another poll right now, is more setting an example or something, but will have no practical implications, as the order to attack across the bridge will take place.

Daveshack did not convince me with this poll, but the fact that there is no penalty for our keshik attacking the longbowman across the river.

So, court or no court, no other poll is needed, sanity prevails.

 

[Methos]

So please, let us go on with our work, kill the keshik and go on with it.

Considering the fact that someone else created the poll and others agree with it, I do not feel it is just me. Besides, as citizens we have the right if we so choose, even if it is against the officials wishes.

as the order to attack across the bridge will take place.

I understand you fully plan on attacking the longbow, but I was under the impression you didn't plan on doing it during the current turn. This poll is to decide on whether the citizens prefer that attack immediately, or not.

So, court or no court, no other poll is needed, sanity prevails.

This statement is what bothers me the most and you have alluded to it on many occaisions. Do you intend to follow your own intent no matter what the courts decide or how the citizens vote? My question is in regards to all instances and not just this one.

 

[Provolution]

Have you ever see me go against the wishes of a poll?

Arguing is another story in the threads. I am the one putting up polls lately, this is the only poll affecting my role as such. If people had more energy to focus on more pressing tasks, I would be amazed. For some reason, this almost seems personal. This travesty started out with some citizens denying the split into two or more stacks, and ended up in this farcical end product.

 

[donsig]

Donsig I think if you were to read the other forums rather than just the poll section you'd find that Daveshack is not being the least bit unfair in this poll. There was huge citizen support for a move against this longbow but the warlord refused to make any such move, he now says that that was clearly what he intended all along but that is certainly not the case as I noticed no indication of that until yesterday.

Daveshack's poll is an attempt to force an elected official to listen to citizen input, a type of poll that should never be necessary but sadly was for this issue.

I fully support DaveShack's right as a citizen to post such a poll. However, neither officials nor citizens should expect to post bad polls and have them carry the weight of law. With all the arguing over how to try to kill the longbow you've all overlooked the fact that it is a very badly worded poll.

Daveshack may be a mod but I don't see him using any moderator powers here, he hasn't changed any text he hasn't hidden posts he's simply posted his point of view. I pray that the courts will have the wisdom to validate this poll otherwise drastic courses of action will be necessary to make sure that citizen input is respected.

See post number 19 by DaveShack in this thread. Specifically look at the red colored text that says moderator action.

As a longtime DG participant DaveShack should realize by now that his hastily posted poll is badly worded. As a moderator he should set an example and admit it's a bad poll.

From the discussion that has taken place in this thread it seems agreement has developed to attack the longbow with the full strength keshik but now with the other wounded keshik even if the longbow survives. Am I reading this right?

 

[Provolution]

Daveshack tried to press his luck with "will of the people" and the unilateral support in the poll, my vote included, to bundle further attachments and even breaching the parameters of his own poll by expanding it to include using the 1.4 health keshik as back up and even stating that anything not killing the longbowman is illegal. How could that be, only two units can reach the unit, and the almost dead Keshik would make no difference.

It is beyond doubt that the healthy keshik will be doing the job.

What I am reacting too is post-polling leveraging of the same poll to add more clauses than the poll suggested, a sort of hijacking poll. If the poll merely meant "attack the longbowman with the keshik in turn 1", it would be fine. But then in the following postings, many of them went overboard, expanding the scope far beyond the original, badly written poll. This is why this is farcical.

I think the case you are referring to is post 6 in this thread, which was edited 0948 PM last night, just after my post 7, 0947, where he seemed to have edited away the questionable bundling I addressed. But I read it, and has been part of discussions since.

It is like I would write an insurance premium, that if you lose your life this year, you will be given 500 000 USD. Then I would add later on a document you did not sign, that then your wife had to die as well, and not only that, she had to die in labor on New Years eve. Then I would threaten the insured person with bankrupcy, if he did not accept the terms, and further expand the insurance document in all directions, beyond its original purpose.

 

[DaveShack]

Any tactical move which results in the longbow's death prior to the current EOT is acceptable. Any move which allows the longbow a path to the city at EOT is not acceptable.

Sorry, this post was in response to an earlier reply which I interpreted as being "Yes, we'll attack the longbow, but next turn" and my intended meaning was "no, you will attack this turn, moves which fail to attack are not acceptable". To be honest, I didn't even consider the other keshik. To be equally honest, in my own game I would attack with the full-strength one, and follow with the injured one if the first one failed and the second had >60% chance of success. However I know the average DG player tends to be more conservative.

So in reality I did not mean to change the meaning of the poll. My optimism that the keshik would be successful led me to use "kill" where "attack" would be more accurate.

 

[Methos]

Have you ever see me go against the wishes of a poll?

That doesn't answer my question. And to be honest, your previous statements appear to be saying you would go against a poll or court ruling. I'm not the only one who is taking your posts that way.

This is in no way personal, my main concern is whether you, or any citizen for that matter, would follow along with a poll even if it goes against that officials wishes.

With all the arguing over how to try to kill the longbow you've all overlooked the fact that it is a very badly worded poll.

I would agree. Even though we all can assume what the intent was, that does not make the poll correct. It should have been stated to attack, rather than kill. Granted, maybe the OP intended to kill the longbow, though he should have stated that.

See post number 19 by DaveShack in this thread. Specifically look at the red colored text that says moderator action.

To be honest I felt the "mod actions" were appropiate. Read what it was in reference too. Had it not been handled so swiftly, it could have easily spun out of control into a flame war.

From the discussion that has taken place in this thread it seems agreement has developed to attack the longbow with the full strength keshik but now with the other wounded keshik even if the longbow survives. Am I reading this right?

IMO it only depends on what condition the longbow is in if he survives. If he is still fairly strong than I would say no, as losing a second keshik wouldn't be worth it. If the longbow survives and is still rather weak, than yes, finish that puppy off.

What I am reacting too is post-polling leveraging of the same poll to add more clauses than the poll suggested, a sort of hijacking poll. If the poll merely meant "attack the longbowman with the keshik in turn 1", it would be fine. But then in the following postings, many of them went overboard, expanding the scope far beyond the original, badly written poll. This is why this is farcical.

This I agree with, hence my consideration of creating a second poll that is more properly worded. I was hoping that since this was DS's poll, he might be the one to create the fix.

 

[DaveShack]

I think the case you are referring to is post 6 in this thread, which was edited 0948 PM last night, just after my post 7, 0947, where he seemed to have edited away the questionable bundling I addressed. But I read it, and has been part of discussions since.

My edit to the post in question was to add this.

It is always preferable to allow an official to implement the people's will voluntarily. I have no desire to create conflict, just to protect the rights of the citizens to set policy that officials must follow.

 

[Provolution]

I think it is not worth the problem, we send in the healthy Keshik, and guard the survivor with the two specified axemen. It is that simple.

 

[DaveShack]

What I am reacting too is post-polling leveraging of the same poll to add more clauses than the poll suggested, a sort of hijacking poll. If the poll merely meant "attack the longbowman with the keshik in turn 1", it would be fine. But then in the following postings, many of them went overboard, expanding the scope far beyond the original, badly written poll. This is why this is farcical.

This I agree with, hence my consideration of creating a second poll that is more properly worded. I was hoping that since this was DS's poll, he might be the one to create the fix.

Do you think the 9 people who voted yes will change their minds?

I freely admit that attack would have been better wording, but will also assert that it appears the people didn't have any trouble understanding what was being proposed.

A serious request will be honored.

 

[Methos]

Do you think the 9 people who voted yes will change their minds?

No.

I freely admit that attack would have been better wording, but will also assert that it appears the people didn't have any trouble understanding what was being proposed.

I feel its more of a legal stand point. How can a poll be binding if its wording is incorrect?

Note, there's no reason to continue the discussion of a new poll until after we hear the courts ruling.

 

[Provolution]

I think there is a broad consensus on attacking the longbowman, stated for the xteenth time. I cant wait to see him dead. For that matter, I feel the same about this discussion, as I feel for the German Longbowman.

The original citizen input, in its raw and unaltered form, was nothing but a series of instant attacks right and left, with no priority on force preservation. This Keshik attacking the longbow, is merely icing on the cake, yet, stole the entire show. Having saved the loss of several high quality units from the "citizen input", is already forgotten.

But I learnt my lesson, listen to advise, even if the advise is not that good, and to learn about the game rules in more detail. Like the none penalty for river crossing keshiks, something several of us learnt about.