Opinion poll: what to do about the Mongolian settler

[ravensfire]

Whomp - I will not disagree with you about this - it IS important. It's also darn important that we make a decision, and one that will stick, on this matter. I don't see that, and I did not, and do not, trust Robboo to create a poll that will dictate his actions.

There's an art to creating a useful poll for a leader, and that's lacking in this DG. Polls need to cover not just the actions, but the circumstances behind those actions so that if there are variations in the situation, a relevant and informed instruction can be made.

I get irked when I see "Instructions may be changed at the turnchat" - that's a rather lame excuse for "I don't want to think ahead". The vast majority of general cirumstances can be accounted and talked about, given the vast majority of our citizen who ONLY participate in the forums a chance to help in decisions.

I get irked when I see "unofficial poll" such as this from leader without any information about future binding polls. Sure - he finally did say that, AFTER being called on it. I still don't trust that statement. This poll doesn't provide any more information than the discussion has.

To be blunt, we need to determine soon the general course of action on this so that we, the citizens, can meaningfully participate in any planning of near-term actions. You can over-analysis matters, leaving minimal time for planning. I'm seeing that, and don't like it.

I'm objecting to a cavalier attitude that I'm seeing develop. I demand better from those that run from office, and will call them out when I feel it is warranted. I'll be polite about it, but I will get my point across.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Why would it be needed. READ THE FREAKIN THREAD!!!

I did. Please read my comments on that matter.

Sheesh.

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

I don't see that, and I did not, and do not, trust Robboo to create a poll that will dictate his actions.

I'll be polite about it, but I will get my point across.

-- Ravensfire

Seems contradictary to me.

First you attack my character by saying I won't follow up on what I said then you said you will be polite. Hardly. Show me one place where I did not follow up on something I said. Truth is ..You dont me know me. I wont hold my breath for an apolgy after I post the binding poll. AS far as why I did not state I would post a binding poll..I try to keep the posts short and to the point in order to get more people to read them.

As far as talking to the other members of the Tri..What more can I tell them. If all I have to do is post in their threads to statisfy that then I will do so.

 

[donsig]

I must say I agree with pretty much everything ravensfire has said. robboo has replied to the points I raised earlier and his replies are encouraging. I made my initial remarks with the assumption that the Mongol settler would reach it's destined city site during the upcoming game play session. Under that assumption this poll is about a decison for the upcoming session. It really would have been much better had the first post for this poll stated that the idea was to feel out the citizens now, stop the chat before the settler made a city and then post a binding referendum. I think that would have certainly allayed the concerns both ravensfire and I have expressed. At least that's now out on the table and hopefully this will happen just that way.

I feel as though I need to add a little more in the way of general comments here. I'm sorry if it looks a s though I'm singling out robboo and his poll. That is certainly NOT what I am trying to do. But I do recognize a pattern here and this thread seems ot have the attention of many so I'll say them here, with my apologies to robboo.

The release of seems to have brought many new members to CivFanatics and the first demogame has many members who did not participate inthe earlier Civ III DGs. We started out with a nice big pool of plays - just as we did when the first Civ III demogame was begun. We lost many participants from the first Civ III DG and I think we're on the verge of losing many here for the same reasons.

If we truly want to keep participation at a high level in this game then we must allow all citizens an equal chance to participate. Two things hinder this equal participation: officials who are intent on making decisions themselves and the making of decisions during the turn chat. Both of these have already happened in this demogame despite a constitution designed to prevent both. Our current constitution has evolved from our experience in seven previous demogames. That document contains the collective wisdom we gained from the various trials and tribulations of those demogames. If the spirit and letter of that constitution is followed we will not only maintain a high rate of participation in this demogame we will all have lots of fun doing it. We can do this by confining our planning to the input citizens give in the forums and by posting instructions in the forums that cannot be changed in the chats.

 

[Swissempire]

I demand better from those that run from office, and will call them out when I feel it is warranted. I'll be polite about it, but I will get my point across.

-- Ravensfire

Are you saying that Robboo and i are running From office

But on a more serious note, this is a game run by the people and governed by the law, and this poll is both legally the right thing to do, and approved by the people. You have got your point across, and IMHO it is a poor one. This "cavalier" attidue is not ours but yours. Cavalier is defined as: marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters and aristocratic. That you would presume that you knoe best for the citizenry while ignoring the facts and the citiziens, based on experience is cavalier and aristocratic in the truest forms of those words.

Its a new game, a new democracy, and a new constituency. Get with the program. If you want a debate, lets go!:bringit:

 

[robboo]

donsig...as we discussed in PM.. No need to apologize, I know where you are coming from. And have expressed my agreement with you on your points about the chat and orders being changed.

 

[Swissempire]

I must say I agree with pretty much everything ravensfire has said. robboo has replied to the points I raised earlier and his replies are encouraging. I made my initial remarks with the assumption that the Mongol settler would reach it's destined city site during the upcoming game play session. Under that assumption this poll is about a decison for the upcoming session. It really would have been much better had the first post for this poll stated that the idea was to feel out the citizens now, stop the chat before the settler made a city and then post a binding referendum. I think that would have certainly allayed the concerns both ravensfire and I have expressed. At least that's now out on the table and hopefully this will happen just that way.

I feel as though I need to add a little more in the way of general comments here. I'm sorry if it looks a s though I'm singling out robboo and his poll. That is certainly NOT what I am trying to do. But I do recognize a pattern here and this thread seems ot have the attention of many so I'll say them here, with my apologies to robboo.

The release of seems to have brought many new members to CivFanatics and the first demogame has many members who did not participate inthe earlier Civ III DGs. We started out with a nice big pool of plays - just as we did when the first Civ III demogame was begun. We lost many participants from the first Civ III DG and I think we're on the verge of losing many here for the same reasons.

If we truly want to keep participation at a high level in this game then we must allow all citizens an equal chance to participate. Two things hinder this equal participation: officials who are intent on making decisions themselves and the making of decisions during the turn chat. Both of these have already happened in this demogame despite a constitution designed to prevent both. Our current constitution has evolved from our experience in seven previous demogames. That document contains the collective wisdom we gained from the various trials and tribulations of those demogames. If the spirit and letter of that constitution is followed we will not only maintain a high rate of participation in this demogame we will all have lots of fun doing it. We can do this by confining our planning to the input citizens give in the forums and by posting instructions in the forums that cannot be changed in the chats.

I could not agree with you more, but this poll IS following the spirit and letter of the demogame. But the chats thing is esentiall to running a quick and smooth game. If anything, we need mor opinion polls. Polls get people excited and involved, they spark more debate then dicussions. Opinion polls allow the consitiuency to GUIDE there elected REPRESENTATIVES. These REPRESENTATIVES were elected because they were deemed fit for the job by the majority, who felt there could TRUST their desition making powers. THe authority that is granted to them by the law, the constition and the people is theirs to use. By confining everything to the citiziens, the game would go much slower and be less effiecnt. There would be NO NEED for officials at all. We could just poll everything, play a turn or two, stop, repoll everything, play a turn or two, stop, repoll. We would lose more people by doing this.
I am in favor of more opinion polls, and congratulate Robboo for begining this livly debate by doing the right thing

 

[ravensfire]

Swissempire - I have not questioned the validity of this poll per se, but I have and will continue question the purpose of this practice. It's a poor excuse for leadership and a poor example of the execution of the responsibilities of a leader.

We elect LEADERS. I expect, want and demand that the lead us - lead discussions. Lead in planning. Lead in providing information. I do not expect them to dictate and to avoid seeking the will of ALL citizens. We have seen more example of this in this term that the previous terms combined! In large part, this is because the game has become more complicated - decisions aren't quite so easy.

You have managed to completely miss my points - that's not good. I do not want to see micro-managed polls on each individual step. I want to see polls, binding and offiicial polls not these watered down excuses, that will GUIDE discussions, that will LEAD us towards out decisions.

You just don't get that, and that's sad. Even worse, you apparently don't understand the difference.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Pajka]

I voted to attack the city when it reaches size 2.
But that was because my option didn't show up and I think that this one is the nearest one (even if I think that in my proposal we'll go to war sooner).
My proposal is to move all available units towards Mongolia. Send one or two units to mongolian Horse-tile and as soon as they'll start using them, declare war, pillage pasture/road to those horses to deny them access to them and to deny them to build offensive units. Then keep on defensive war till the newly built city near iron reaches size 2, then take over. Then continue on defensive war till we have power to take over their capital.
I repeat that the main point of my proposal to not let them build any offensive units = not let them use neither Iron nor Horses!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Hmm, mayhap I should use my powers as a Citizen to restate this as an Initiative.
-- Ravensfire

Two things hinder this equal participation: officials who are intent on making decisions themselves and the making of decisions during the turn chat. Both of these have already happened in this demogame despite a constitution designed to prevent both.

Citizen, schmitizen.......you had your voice when you voted in the elections. When you all want a say in every decision an office makes, it makes me wonder why we even have elected officials.

If I have to deal with some disenfranchisement as an American citizen, I am sure that the vocal patriots present can endure a well-meaning helping of the same in this game.

In the future, maybe we should just have Swissempire gather all information from each official so he can post some sanitized choices with equally sanitized results. Doing so would complete the circle by separating all leaders from the job they were elected to carry out --- putting all power back with the vocal masses.

I'll wait for the usual straw man response, you two.

 

[donsig]

I could not agree with you more, but this poll IS following the spirit and letter of the demogame.

This poll along with the clarifications given by robboo does indeed, but the poll as first posted does not. I hope you can see the difference.

But the chats thing is esentiall to running a quick and smooth game.

Essential? No. The game could be run quite well without chats. In fact if would be smoother and more fun without the chats.

These REPRESENTATIVES were elected because they were deemed fit for the job by the majority, who felt there could TRUST their desition making powers. THe authority that is granted to them by the law, the constition and the people is theirs to use. By confining everything to the citiziens, the game would go much slower and be less effiecnt. There would be NO NEED for officials at all. We could just poll everything, play a turn or two, stop, repoll everything, play a turn or two, stop, repoll. We would lose more people by doing this.

No. I certainly did not vote for candidates because I thought I could trust their decision making powers. I voted for candidates I thought would listen to what I and other citizens had to say (whether in forum discussion or via a poll) and then post game play instructions according to whatever concensus was reached by the citizens. I really hope I was not the only one using those criteria when voting.

If you would read (and try to understand) what is actually written in the constitution you would know that the decision making authority granted to elected officials is near the bottom of the hierachy and superceded by any citizen decision of any form. This does not mean that every little detail has to be discussed and voted on by citizens. It does mean the citizens (and not those elected) decide the level of detail they want to exert over a given issue. Take for example exploring. Once citizens decide to explore there is the simple consensus to explore at one end of the spectrum and a detailed list of which units will explore and the exact path each will take at the other end. In between those two extremes are an infinite number of partial instructions citizens can give to officials. They could decide the number sent out and/or the general direction each is to go. Citizens could decide on a specific path for one unit while and just give a general directin for others. But it is up to us citizens to decide how much control we want to exert - and we do not have to be consistent. In other words we set the parameters. Officials post instructions within those parameters and are free to make any decisions that fit. BTW, the purpose of having officials is to delegate authority for posting official game play instructions for the DP to follow. The DP needs one concise thread with instructions so he or she can play the save the way it was decided to play.

What has developed in this game so far is the attitude you so aptly express: officials are elected because they know what's best and the rest of us should just sit back, keep our mouths shut, vote in polls whenever an official thinks we need one, and then (of course) vote again at the beginning of the month for another set of officials. You want to play that game, fine. I don't.

My apologies to Pajka and others who want to discuss what to do about the settler. Pajka's plan sounds very interesting. Do we have enough units to defend ourselves and to carry out the proposed pillaging? Another question: are we sure the Mongols will build the city in a place we want it to be? I'm worried that if we vote to let them build a city it may not be where we want it! We need a contingency plan for this.

 

[Swissempire]

My apologys to all for high-jacking this thread. This seems to be a important topic we are dicussing so i will post a dicusstion in the Citiziens forum.

 

[Hardvark]

Citizen, schmitizen.......you had your voice when you voted in the elections. When you all want a say in every decision an office makes, it makes me wonder why we even have elected officials.

And to be fair, Robboo is one of the very few officials who was actually elected! Surely that's got to count for something.

I've made a more serious (it's all relative ) post in the new thread that Swissempire has kindly created for that very purpose. Thanks Swiss.

 

[robboo]

I voted to attack the city when it reaches size 2.
My proposal is to move all available units towards Mongolia. Send one or two units to mongolian Horse-tile and as soon as they'll start using them, declare war, pillage pasture/road to those horses to deny them access to them and to deny them to build offensive units. Then keep on defensive war till the newly built city near iron reaches size 2, then take over. Then continue on defensive war till we have power to take over their capital.
I repeat that the main point of my proposal to not let them build any offensive units = not let them use neither Iron nor Horses!

I do like this...however..here is why I dont like declaring early in this instance. By declaring war early wihout the capablity or desire to capture the iron city, we allow them to prepare and maybe switch from non-military production to military production. In general defensive battles chew up units and dont provide anything to fight for. Why go to war before you have the units or desire to gain territory. War is about destroying the enemy for something you want especially in civ. The loss of production and war weariness in our current happiness state would be detrimental to the growth of our nation.

We are at minimal 3 turns from them building the city and 3 or 4 from seeing the horses. The 2 axes not near abydos would take 9 and 4 turns to reach Abydos. The spearman..is not available till a garrison unit can be built in MG. Right now we have 4 axes and 2 warriors to protect Abydos. What if we declare and start our defensive war and a stack of 4 Keshiks show up 2 turns later. We would probably lose Abydos.

What I would like to see happen is this...we move the ax from Abydos SE and see what the settlers intentions are. At the same time we move the warrior SE following that road...roads lead to resources or cities in the early game. We continue to bracket settler with the axes. Now as soon as the settler gets to a jungle/forest tile that is adjacent to a plain/desert/grassland tile. We stop the TC take a screen shot and have a BINDING POLL. This could be at minimal 2 turns for the settler and 3 turns to see the horse.

If they dont have horses and we know they dont have iron or copper...the I say kill the settler since archers arent a good offensive unit.

 

[DaveShack]

Let's step back a bit and look more closely to see what needs to be done before we can take any of the attacking options.

A declaration of war requires a citizen's initiative. Whether this poll is binding or not is immaterial because another poll will be required anyway.

 

[robboo]

Dave...personally..I think we need 3 or 4 turns before we even have enough information that was teh purpose of this poll...to see I if needed to get EVERY unit moving to the Abydos area. I agreed to stopping the chat because in light of this development I would need to have posted new instructions during the chat to get units moving in the right direction.

Right now what it tells me is that I need to reposition a few units but not send every thing we have. I would like to see a short TC soon(after this poll ends) in order to get a better grasp on what our situation was. In addition not only was it improper(illegal??) for me to give orders in the TC but I didnt have a full view of the situation until I could see the save.( which cant happen during the chat for me due to computer issues).

I would like to see the next chat end with discovery of the their horses resource situation (2 or 4 turns) or their settler moving to a tile adjacent to the plains/grassland area.( minumum of 2 turns). Then we can come back and present the situation to the citizens for an initiative. I think you are up for DP next

 

[Whomp]

I'm in the same camp as Robboo and agree with DaveShack.

The Mongols have a serious logistics problem whether it's the horses or the iron. They need to spend an inordinate amount of time linking up both resources and this gives us the time to prepare a complete military offensive. If we are planning to war we need to be offensive not defensive. Defensive wars are totally unproductive and a complete waste of time. Getting workers as our booty is not nearly enough.

If we plan to attack sooner rather than later it is my opinion we need to get off the drama track and start on the catapult track. Siege weapons and forest chops will be absolutely necessary for any offensive actions.

 

[robboo]

Ravensfire...I guess you were right in saying you wont see a poll 48 hours before the next turn chat. My apologizes to you...but it was out of my control. Right now 1 vote seperates 2 choices which are very different. I will try to give a hybrid set of instructions to satisfy both of the conditions.

However..this TC WILL be cut short if certain condidtions happen... my instructions will be quite clear and specific in that regard. I invite all of youto attend the TC and insure that this followed.. I will be unable to attend.

Iwill post my instructions shortly(if my guests dont arrive early). If not it will be posted later tonight.

 

[DaveShack]

Given that I'm the DP and I support snatching the settler before they even plant the city, the play session will stop if they reach a point where a city could be planted the next turn. That means once their settler is adjacent to flatland, we're stopping, even if that means we don't even finish a single turn. (I haven't looked at the save so don't know where it stands) Then we'll have an up or down binding vote on whether to take the settler and get a worker now. If we have to wait for the city to grow, we'll be giving them a long delay where they can see the threat and prepare.

 

[robboo]

My instructions will be clear as to when to stop also..
If they beeline to iron..2 turns till you stop.