New CoL/Constitution

[DaveShack]

Many thanks to all for the history lessions, and for your opinions. It's really surprising to see how few people have actually commented.

As I see it, a middle ground has been suggested, which is optional spot votes, initiated by the DP when advice is wanted, and only for unforseen circumstances. No authority would be given to override existing instructions. It also looks like some people would like this to be limited to truly unforseeable actions so it can not be used as a substitute for forum activity.

A small step in the chat-oriented direction from this middle ground would be to require spot votes in certain circumstances which are predefined, like the popup windows. Another small step (IMHO at least) is to allow a leader to occasionally give spot instructions, which would be helpful if one didn't have internet access to post the gameplay instructions, for example, with penalties for people who abuse the system.

The forum-based way to achieve these same thing is the standing instruction (agree to all tribute demands from xyz, refuse all from pdq).

As a side effect, in the case of the middle ground proposal, with votes being called by the DP only, it lets each term be defined by the presidential candidate who wins. If the winner likes spot votes, then vote away, and if the winner doesn't like them then none have to be called. Any given President can go as far as desired into the chat world by asking advice on any subject lacking clear instructions, but no President would be forced to do that against his / her will.

 

[donsig]

DaveShack, how is the middle ground proposal any different than what we've been doing this term?

We've debated this and come to this middle ground proposal and that's exactly what we've been doing! Trouble is, the DP chose not to hold one of these optional spot votes, made a decision that some citizens at the chat didn't like and all heck broke lose to the point where we're now on hold when we should be playing the darn game tomorrow! We're on hold to pass a CoL so we can avoid the mistakes and problems we recently encountered and the best solution we can come up with is to do exactly what we've been doing! We must now conclude that either our discussion and debate has gone awry or there was no problem with our laws in the first place that needed fixing!

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

spot votes gotta go with exception to an extreme emergencies

 

[eyrei]

Purely informational spot votes at the DPs discretion seem like a good standard to me. If the DP does not feel comfortable making a decision on his/her own, then they may call a spot vote of those at the chat to get an idea of what people may want.

 

[Cyc]

I like that idea, eyrei. Now, can we play a turn chat?

 

[eyrei]

The next turn chat will be scheduled for Wednesday, I believe.

Unless we get a CoL of some sort drafted and adopted before then...

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig Trouble is, the DP chose not to hold one of these optional spot votes, made a decision that some citizens at the chat didn't like and all heck broke lose to the point where we're now on hold when we should be playing the darn game tomorrow! We're on hold to pass a CoL so we can avoid the mistakes and problems we recently encountered and the best solution we can come up with is to do exactly what we've been doing! We must now conclude that either our discussion and debate has gone awry or there was no problem with our laws in the first place that needed fixing! [/B]

There is a vital point to stating that spot votes and in-chat advice are optional, and that is to protect the DP. When general practice differs from the law because the law says nothing about a subject, it opens an opportunity for this type of disagreement. The law being silent on a subject can be interpreted two ways. One way of looking at it is, if it isn't there it doesn't exist and is not allowed.
The other way of looking at it is if everyone is doing it, and there is no rule against it, then it must be allowed.
The right thing to do is to define it one way or the other (or something in the middle) so there can be no more questions.

 

[DaveShack]

Should I go ahead and reword the proposal into legalese and get ready to post an official poll? To summarize my current proposal:

1. The only binding instructions are those given in the Forums, either in a gameplay instruction thread, or in a standing orders thread.
2. Standing orders remain active while the player who posted them remains in the same office held when the orders are posted, or until superceded by a new standing order, or until cancelled. Once a turn using a standing order has been played, changes to that order must be announced in a new post, not in an edit to the original post. This prevents misunderstanding about when an order is posted. Standing orders can be superceded by gameplay instructions.
3. Gameplay instructions pertain to a particular set of turns to be played, and must be posted in the gameplay instructions thread for those turns. Gameplay instructions supercede any conflicting standing orders from the same department.
4. Fuller participation in and enjoyment of the game being desired, the DP is encouraged to play the game during an on-line chat session, but is allowed to play offline when circumstances warrant.
5. During an on-line game play session (turn chat), the DP may request advice of any player. Any player may spontaneously give advice, which the DP is free to follow or not at his/her sole discretion. A non-binding spot vote of the council members (or representatives) present may be requested to obtain advice, but during play the only binding instructions are the ones posted in Standing Orders or Gameplay Instructions threads.
6. Standing orders must not be of the form "no xxx without yyy department approval". The intent of the game is to have well thought decisions. Therefore decisions can not be deferred until game play time in this way.
7. An instruction may be of the form "if xyz happens, stop play so discussion can be conducted", as long as it is possible to save the game without proceeding. This form of instruction can not be used for dialogs which require an immediate answer.
   [/list=1]

 

[Cyc]

I pretty much like it DS, but I have a problem with the Standing Orders. You haven't said where they are to be posted. I believe they should be posted in the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread so that the DP doesn't have to sift through pages of text to find them. If they are posted in the TCI thread, then the DP should remember seeing them from the t/c before and will know to keep them active until changed. The changes or cancellation should also be in the TCI thread. These standing orders can also be posted anywhere else, but in order to be implemented, the must be in the TCI thread.

 

[GenMarshall]

What about the last minute changes the leader has for the Instructions? Should he/she tell the DP to refresh the instruction thread to find the changes, or should the Leader Transmit his/her updated instructions to the DP?

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Cyc
I pretty much like it DS, but I have a problem with the Standing Orders. You haven't said where they are to be posted. I believe they should be posted in the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread so that the DP doesn't have to sift through pages of text to find them. If they are posted in the TCI thread, then the DP should remember seeing them from the t/c before and will know to keep them active until changed. The changes or cancellation should also be in the TCI thread. These standing orders can also be posted anywhere else, but in order to be implemented, the must be in the TCI thread.

Well, I was thinking about it from the leader's point of view, of not having to copy the SO's into the TCI every time. Maybe we need a thread with posts at the top containing the current SO's, and an audit trail of change posts below. This way when an SO changes it needs to be put in two places (top of thread edit and in a new post at end of thread) but it never needs to be copied if it never changes.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
What about the last minute changes the leader has for the Instructions? Should he/she tell the DP to refresh the instruction thread to find the changes, or should the Leader Transmit his/her updated instructions to the DP?

To provide an audit trail, they should be posted in the TCI thread. The leader may inform the DP if instructions have been changed for example if the DP looked before the scheduled time and didn't see the change. Best practice for the DP would be to echo a summary of orders to the chat so there is no question whether they were seen. All changes must be posted prior to the scheduled start of chat -- no more changing at the last minute, which is no better than telling the DP during the chat!

 

[GenMarshall]

But what would happenen if something unexpected comes up, like a Barbarian unit comes in, or an enemey unit comes out from the Fog of war? I beleve that we should allow for Leaders to change there orders when thease things happen.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
But what would happenen if something unexpected comes up, like a Barbarian unit comes in, or an enemey unit comes out from the Fog of war? I beleve that we should allow for Leaders to change there orders when thease things happen.

Well, we have to give our DP something to do. Seriously, that's what standing orders are for, and the DP should ask in that case if it's not so obvious that a child could see what needs to be done. Of course even that is not guaranteed, as some of our term 2 events would show...

 

[donsig]

I think any standing orders should be included in each game play instruction thread. It would be too diificult for the DP to keep lloking around at different threads. It is difficult enough with all the instructions in one thread. (BTW, we really need worker requests to be consolidated by someone and put in the game play instruction thread in one post.)

I think the example given in #7 is improper. It is up to the DP to determine if game play should stop. Leaders do not have the constitutional authority to instruct that a game play session be halted. They can certainly request that play halt at a certian point but ultimately the decision rests with the DP. #7 should be modified or dropped.

I would also like to point out that merely posting an instruction in the game play instruction thread does not make it legal. It is always possible for a leader to post an illegal instruction in the game play instruction thread. For example, the domestic leader could issue an instruction that a settler be escorted. That would not be a legal instruction since it is the military leader who is responsible for our military units. (Note that I do not raise this issue seeking modifications to the proposal.)

 

[disorganizer]

@donsig:
* chat-stoppers
the constitution does not say anything against it either. the authority to stop the chat is not defined in the constitution and thus can be modified by a law. it should be possible for the leaders to define explicit stop-conditions (not "if anything happens stop the chat").

* posting of instructions
i think there should be a "standing orders / department concept" thread where each department can post and update the departmental policy. (SO-thread)

* editing of instructions
we should COMPLETELY DISALLOW any editing of existing order-posts in the TCI or SO threads. if an order needs to be changed, then a NEW post should be added rather than editing an existing one...(!). also, directly BEFORE doing anything with the save the DP should post a "TURN CHAT STARTED!" post in the SO and TCI-thread to document up to which point instructions are valid.

* illegal instructions
illegal instructions are invalid, as the leader is not allowed to post an instruction which he posted. so that part of his instruction would be invalid. in your example, this would mean that his settler-moove request would be legal but if the ML did not post an instruction to escort the settler, the settler would go there without escort. the domestic leader COULD though post an instruction to "moove settler xy to place a if an escort is ordered by the military. do not moove settler if no escort is available".

ADDITIONS:
im still for letting the "future president" define whether he wants offline turnchats or not BEFORE he is elected. or let the citizens decide at the start of the term. the decission should then be binding for the DP's of that term.
this way such "surprises" wont happen any more ;-)

 

[DaveShack]

A poll has been created for the proposed new law on forms of instructions. I did not make all of the requested changes, since doing so would defeat the purpose of proposing it at all. I hope it turns out to be the necessary middle ground.

The poll can be found here.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
@donsig:
* chat-stoppers
the constitution does not say anything against it either. the authority to stop the chat is not defined in the constitution and thus can be modified by a law. it should be possible for the leaders to define explicit stop-conditions (not "if anything happens stop the chat").

* posting of instructions
i think there should be a "standing orders / department concept" thread where each department can post and update the departmental policy. (SO-thread)

Yes, chat stopping instructions ciould be made law (if the judiciary upholds the concept in a judicial review) but I think that is dangerous ground to walk on. Giving leaders the right to stop the chat whenever they see fit could be greatly abused for political reasons.

A seperate standing orders thread would onlu complicate the game play instruction process. It is already difficult enough to try to follow the instructions that are in the one thread we have. I do wish some of our former presidents would speak out on this issue. It is all well and good for those of you who have necer been DP to call for changes but since you've never been in the hot seat it would be wise if you all listened to those of us who have been there...

 

[disorganizer]

@donsig:
... as long as only you are here of those we will listen ;-9

for the abusing of chat-stoppers:
thats why the law should state them to be SPECIFIC instructions, and not GENERAL instructions ;-) so no chat-stopper like "if anything unexpected happens stop the chat" would be allowed.
but i also see the possibility for the DP to abuse the rights he has (if you suspect our leaders to abuse the system, this must also be valid as suspicion for the dp). as such it MUST be possible to use that kind of instructions... to prevent the DP from doing some specific things out of his own personal thinking instead of departmental input.

 

[donsig]

Well dis, if the DP goes against any valid and legal instructions then he can be impeached, right? By giving leaders the right to stop the caht even for specific instructions then we run the risk of a leader opposing the president on some issue and then instructing the chat to be stopped on the first turn every time just to delay things till the next election...