Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by Octavian X, Jul 7, 2003.
Hmmm. Wise Man say "never mind". OK, Wise Man.
Well, I gues the Wise Man is out of Words
@donsig: YOU know that impeachment takes at least one week, under certain circumstances even longer. So a president obviously going against one of his leaders can run with the save pretty far in time before he can be stopped ;-P
So the same argument you use goes for and against chat stoppers.... against if you suspect the leaders to be evil, for if you suspect the dp to be evil...
if we suspect nobody to be evil, then we may also implement the possibility for those stoppers, with clear guidelines how they should look like...
Wrong dis. If the DP were doing something so horribly wrong that impeachment was really warranted and was *running away with the save* as you put it, the moderators could be appealed to and the DP could be removed long before a week is up. The biggest danger is not from the one DP trying to play too fast, it is from a disgruntled leader (and it would only take one) stopping the game.
which could also be stopped by a moderator during one week. as said, your arguments also work against your point.
* a leader not following the wishes of the citizens can also be impeached
* a leader trying to disrupt the game can be put down by the moderators
so where is your point? but clear instructions on when the leaders want the chat to be stopped will prevent situations as in the infamous 1st chat of your dg3-term.
in the special case there, the military department could have posted that in case of a war the chat must be stopped.
that would have been good and would have prevented the fuzz.
The whole point of well-defined game stoppers for specific events is to allow public discussion and democratic decisions on how to address those events. It is not about letting some people hold the game up so they can take over next election, which is why I tried to make it clear that only specific instructions are valid, not completely general ones.
The biggest example that comes to mind is stopping if war is declared against us. Unless there are advance plans for conduct of such a war, the DP should stop immediately, regardless of whether we allow leaders to leave instructions to stop.
Lack of confidence that this will actually happen is what led me to propose it as a law. This is not aimed at one individual, but at many: Even worse, we seem to have a situation where some players would ignore common sense and do the opposite of what other players suggest, just to prove a point about the law. That is the root of our problems.
To Donsig's credit, my sense is that he is trying to force our leaders to conduct discussions and seek the people's will prior to play, and that is a noble and necessary goal. There are many valid reasons why this might not happen, and some nefarious ones too. Fortunately it is a self-correcting problem -- maybe we should have a citizen group post a rating of candidates past performance as leaders, similar to the PSC board rating of polls.
In summary, the stop instruction are not there to allow leaders to get away with not planning, they are proposed to allow leaders to plan in the face of unforseen circumstances. How can that be a bad thing?
maybe a compromise:
chat-stoppers must be defined in the SO thread at least 48 hours before the chat starts. any chat stopper posted there can be invalidated by a majority vote of the judicacy per request of the president if it is considered as too general. at any time before the chat.
the moderators will then be requested to take those out of the SO-thread (or "cross them out" there to have this documented).
this would allow the president a emergency request to the judicacy if he thinks instructions of a leader are too general.
Hey Eklek hows the process of writing the constitution/CoL coming along?
One of the key lessons learned from contentious PI's of the past is that the final authority to stop a turn chat needs to reside in the hands of the DP alone.
bill: well, imho the lesson is that if you leave too much up to the DP to decide you get incontent citizens. so why do we try to take the decission away from the people?
the DP of course should be allowed to stop the TC at will, but there also should be methods to force him to stop (the main problem with donsig's pi's was that he refused to stop the TC though he was explicitly requested to do so by the citizenry...)
That PI is ironic given that donsig was PI'd before for stopping a turn chat instead of going on
I think that the DP is an elected official and should be accorded the ability to drive decisions. They are elected, and therefore they have more of a mandate from the people than the assembled members of a turn chat.
I think we need to define certain instances (declaration of war and the like) where the turnchat must be stopped, but give them control over the turnchat for the most part.
A lot more slowly than I'd hoped. Part due an unexpectedly busy social life recently, and part due to my underestimating the difficulty involved - at least for someone of my limited talents. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I make a far better critic than a creator
You're not the only one! Let me know if you can use some assistance on specific sections.
Hehehe. I know what you mean, EK, but it does get easier with practice.
Separate names with a comma.