Proposal: Spot Votes
- Thread starter Strider
- Start date
Ok, I was looking WAY back into the old demogame logs (DG1 and 2). Wow! We sure had a lot of confirmation votes then! 
Anyway, here's what spot votes were for then:
Slider
There were many a time when this had to be adjusted. Most often, it was because we were a turn away from research. Other factors that affected it were, AI trade/research, science/commerce improvements, and other trades (for income)). The slider could, at times, be lowered from 100% to 30% (for example), and still yield the same amount of time to research, but give us more gold. The exact percentage can't be known (It's impossible to tell).
Empty Build Queues
This could fall under a new term, "Advisory Vote", which covered queues from governorless provinces (i.e., ones just captured), or ones with a lack of instructions.
Rushing Culture (courthouse for the FP -- i.e., making that city productive and happy)
The first (culture rushes) were done when domestic gave us adequate funding (with culture's approval) to rush culture in recently captured cities, and focus on ones that needed the extra border expansion (which is hard to tell, since you can't easily see the AI's culture level in each city). The 2nd was to get a city up to productive speed (WLTKD, courthouse...) to build the FP.
Lack of instructions or input (such as what to do with extra settlers)
This is common later in the game when there's many provinces, and little instructions. Perhaps this would fall under "Advisory Votes".
Upgrades during wartime
This is where Military and domestic authorized upgrades of X number of units, and the vote was on which units to upgrade. (i.e., upgrading units at a border town).
Rushing (and manuvering) a/several defensive unit(s) and/or defensive installation (improvement) to defend a city during a battle over a period of turns
This would probably be part advisory, but it's something that's turn-per-turn. It would be very inneficient if the chat were stopped every turn for the MA to assess the situation, so spot/advisory votes would be held on how to best defend a city. (The only times we were invaded, to the best of my knowledge, was the Battles of Justinian and Thebes in DG1, and the Indian Incursion in DG2, which was a surprise attack and an instant chat stopper anyway).
Where to build a wonder.
Perhaps this one could use better planning, but back then, wonders were often voted on, but not the location.
In-chat Trades
This is one that I think the current laws kill the flexibility of. The Trade Advisor could say, "Check all possible trades", but because there's no specific instructions, specific trades can't be made. Also, since the instructions are what is to be followed, the trade advisor can't 'change them'.
BTW, here's another situation where a particular trade might be cancelled:
Situation:
A resource is lost due to culture borders, or a broken trade route.
In DG1, we lost control of a gem resource because 1 AI tile expanded. (this is a *VERY* unforseen circumstance). In DG2, we took a rep hit, and a lost of trade because Rome's harbor dissapeared (twice).
I can think of another situation.
The Tech&Trade advisor's trade instruction would conflict with the FA and Military advisors instruction to go to war.
That is, suppose CivX is behind Russia, and we have a road going to Russia's capital. Russia has a road going to CivX. There's a trade connection, so we can trade. The people want to go to war with Russia, but trade wants to trade to CivX. War will ultimately sever the trade route going through Russia.
BTW, is the clause about giving the MA control over the build queues of the province being invaded still in the constitution? (That was a major part of most spot votes regarding defending cities).
Also, I think they were intended to keep the game moving (to try and play 10 turns a chat), rather than stop for every little thing. (Do we want another 10 month demogame?) I also think that the spot votes were intended to clarify unclear instructions or vague (i.e., search for trades every turn, plant a spy) from advisors.
Anyway, here's what spot votes were for then:
Slider
There were many a time when this had to be adjusted. Most often, it was because we were a turn away from research. Other factors that affected it were, AI trade/research, science/commerce improvements, and other trades (for income)). The slider could, at times, be lowered from 100% to 30% (for example), and still yield the same amount of time to research, but give us more gold. The exact percentage can't be known (It's impossible to tell).
Empty Build Queues
This could fall under a new term, "Advisory Vote", which covered queues from governorless provinces (i.e., ones just captured), or ones with a lack of instructions.
Rushing Culture (courthouse for the FP -- i.e., making that city productive and happy)
The first (culture rushes) were done when domestic gave us adequate funding (with culture's approval) to rush culture in recently captured cities, and focus on ones that needed the extra border expansion (which is hard to tell, since you can't easily see the AI's culture level in each city). The 2nd was to get a city up to productive speed (WLTKD, courthouse...) to build the FP.
Lack of instructions or input (such as what to do with extra settlers)
This is common later in the game when there's many provinces, and little instructions. Perhaps this would fall under "Advisory Votes".
Upgrades during wartime
This is where Military and domestic authorized upgrades of X number of units, and the vote was on which units to upgrade. (i.e., upgrading units at a border town).
Rushing (and manuvering) a/several defensive unit(s) and/or defensive installation (improvement) to defend a city during a battle over a period of turns
This would probably be part advisory, but it's something that's turn-per-turn. It would be very inneficient if the chat were stopped every turn for the MA to assess the situation, so spot/advisory votes would be held on how to best defend a city. (The only times we were invaded, to the best of my knowledge, was the Battles of Justinian and Thebes in DG1, and the Indian Incursion in DG2, which was a surprise attack and an instant chat stopper anyway).
Where to build a wonder.
Perhaps this one could use better planning, but back then, wonders were often voted on, but not the location.
In-chat Trades
This is one that I think the current laws kill the flexibility of. The Trade Advisor could say, "Check all possible trades", but because there's no specific instructions, specific trades can't be made. Also, since the instructions are what is to be followed, the trade advisor can't 'change them'.
BTW, here's another situation where a particular trade might be cancelled:
Situation:
A resource is lost due to culture borders, or a broken trade route.
In DG1, we lost control of a gem resource because 1 AI tile expanded. (this is a *VERY* unforseen circumstance). In DG2, we took a rep hit, and a lost of trade because Rome's harbor dissapeared (twice).
I can think of another situation.
The Tech&Trade advisor's trade instruction would conflict with the FA and Military advisors instruction to go to war.
That is, suppose CivX is behind Russia, and we have a road going to Russia's capital. Russia has a road going to CivX. There's a trade connection, so we can trade. The people want to go to war with Russia, but trade wants to trade to CivX. War will ultimately sever the trade route going through Russia.
BTW, is the clause about giving the MA control over the build queues of the province being invaded still in the constitution? (That was a major part of most spot votes regarding defending cities).
Also, I think they were intended to keep the game moving (to try and play 10 turns a chat), rather than stop for every little thing. (Do we want another 10 month demogame?) I also think that the spot votes were intended to clarify unclear instructions or vague (i.e., search for trades every turn, plant a spy) from advisors.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Yes, our leaders have done a pretty good job so far, but we have less than 5 cities right now. What happens when we get 50+ cities? From reading the "What victory should we go after?" (or something of the like) thread, I see a good amount of support for a conquest victory. Which would force us to micromanage alittle over a hundred cities, if we are to win by that victory. The current system CAN NOT work under those circumstance's. You can either fix it no, before it cause's a problem, or fix it later, after it does. IMHO, as I am part of this game also, I would much rather prefer to fix it now, then later.
What you are asking no human being can do, your expecting our leaders to think of EVERYTHING. No, it can not be done. Within the time limit we give them anyway. It could possibly be done if we give them a year to think about it, but by the time the instructions are posted, this game would have already been declared dead.
It is not possible, if you may not believe me now, but you will, wether you like it or not.
What you are asking no human being can do, your expecting our leaders to think of EVERYTHING. No, it can not be done. Within the time limit we give them anyway. It could possibly be done if we give them a year to think about it, but by the time the instructions are posted, this game would have already been declared dead.
It is not possible, if you may not believe me now, but you will, wether you like it or not.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I am against any proposals that would allow instructions to be given during the chat. I would also like to point out that under our current rules the only leagal instructions are those posted in the game play instruction thread one hour before a game play session is scheduled.
I also hasten to point out that it follows from this that any game play session not scheduled at least an hour ahead of time cannot possibly have any legal instructions. In light of this I urge our new President elect to publicly renounce any game play session commemcing at the very start of term two. Give the citizens time to properly discuss things so our lnewly elected leaders can properly post game play instructions before playing the save in term two!
zorven
12,000 Suns
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,964
donsig,
I do not intend to run a Turn Chat on Feb 1 for the very reasons you have stated - there is not enough time for our newly elected Ministers to formulate their instructions.
I had thought I wrote this in the current President's thread but here it is again.
I do not intend to run a Turn Chat on Feb 1 for the very reasons you have stated - there is not enough time for our newly elected Ministers to formulate their instructions.
I had thought I wrote this in the current President's thread but here it is again.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I am not totally opposed to spot votes, but I haven't seen a lot of reason yet to have them. The citizens are not accountable for their actions, the President is.
As it sits now, the Prez is a glorified order taker who is a slave to the instructions (sometimes) posted in the turn chat thread. Now we propose to make him/her an additional servant to anyone who attends chat and can get a majority of friends to join in. We ought to just change the Prez's name to Designated Gopher.
I say, let the Prez have power, and if we reach a point where a spot vote would have occured, and the Prez is not sure of what to do, then end the chat. This is not a race to finish.
As it sits now, the Prez is a glorified order taker who is a slave to the instructions (sometimes) posted in the turn chat thread. Now we propose to make him/her an additional servant to anyone who attends chat and can get a majority of friends to join in. We ought to just change the Prez's name to Designated Gopher.
I say, let the Prez have power, and if we reach a point where a spot vote would have occured, and the Prez is not sure of what to do, then end the chat. This is not a race to finish.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Ok, I just got home from spending a sleepless night in the hospital, I've been unable to even get 2 hours of sleep in the past 3 days. So excuse me if I sound harsh.
As it sits now, the President is a glorified dictator who controls every aspect of the game not detailed within leaders instructions. Now I am proposing to make him/her a slave to the citizens of the game.
I say, the president is powerful enough, and lets not slow the game down for the things no one really cares about. If we don't get this game moving, or we will lose citizens from boredom.
As it sits now, the President is a glorified dictator who controls every aspect of the game not detailed within leaders instructions. Now I am proposing to make him/her a slave to the citizens of the game.
I say, the president is powerful enough, and lets not slow the game down for the things no one really cares about. If we don't get this game moving, or we will lose citizens from boredom.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
You are welcome to be harsh all you want, but I completely disagree
The President has no power when he/she is forced to follow instructions that they disagree with, and that they know put the country at risk. Further, what little power the President has purely defined by how good his/her leaders are. If they post thorough and well thought out instructions, then the President has NO power.
Now we are proposing that what little that is not covered by leaders and existing law be pretty much subject to the whims of those at chat. Why would anyone want to be President again? Other than for the supposed ego boost?
The job carries the constant threat of CC, and involves being an instruction wrangler. Oh but goody, you get to load the save and move units around as explicitly instructed, and God help you if you accidently move a warrior one square west.
The President has no power when he/she is forced to follow instructions that they disagree with, and that they know put the country at risk. Further, what little power the President has purely defined by how good his/her leaders are. If they post thorough and well thought out instructions, then the President has NO power.
Now we are proposing that what little that is not covered by leaders and existing law be pretty much subject to the whims of those at chat. Why would anyone want to be President again? Other than for the supposed ego boost?
The job carries the constant threat of CC, and involves being an instruction wrangler. Oh but goody, you get to load the save and move units around as explicitly instructed, and God help you if you accidently move a warrior one square west.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
No, we are proposing that the president is checked during the turnchat, as he/she is on the forums. Right now, the president has pretty much free rein during the chats, and nothing anyone can say otherwise can stop him from doing what he wants to do.
Not only that, but it is impossible to run a large nation under the current system. Unless you like having 4-7 CC's each term.
Not only that, but it is impossible to run a large nation under the current system. Unless you like having 4-7 CC's each term.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Funny, but I was President last game, under basically the same system as we have here, and had zero PI's (CC's) filed against me. Personally, I consider that term a great success.
-- Ravensfire
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
\Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
You are welcome to be harsh all you want, but I completely disagree
The President has no power when he/she is forced to follow instructions that they disagree with, and that they know put the country at risk. Further, what little power the President has purely defined by how good his/her leaders are. If they post thorough and well thought out instructions, then the President has NO power.
Now we are proposing that what little that is not covered by leaders and existing law be pretty much subject to the whims of those at chat. Why would anyone want to be President again? Other than for the supposed ego boost?
The job carries the constant threat of CC, and involves being an instruction wrangler. Oh but goody, you get to load the save and move units around as explicitly instructed, and God help you if you accidently move a warrior one square west.
That is why someone would want to be president, the ego, and also the honor of playing the save.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
I have no comment on this matter, it is an issue that at this time isnt usefull but may be for later times. I abstain
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
It seems more like a "vote of the elite" rather than a "vote of the citizenry"
First, if we say, "You can only have a spot vote *IF* there has been no discussion and polls.", and add to that, "If an advisor does not post discussions for each turnchat (or link to ongoing ones - i.e., city plan), then CC the advisor for not doing their job.
Hopefully, spot votes (or atleast the threat thereof) will ENCOURAGE advisors to post discussions, especially from governors, which I find most lacking. In a way, citizens don't even get to discuss what gets built. I have yet to see a discussion in the citizens forum about what to build in XYZ province.
Also, normal polls have, on the average, 15-20 votes (excluding elections). Why not say, "If X people are at the turnchat, you can have a spot vote, while following the above rules [that I just posted]".
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
well... Personally I dont plan on giving out CC's, though I have one I would CC for not doing their job.
