Public Investigation#2: May 29 chat - Science queue

[disorganizer]

Public Investigation#2: May 29 chat - Science queue
chiefpaco reported that the science advisory queue was not followed in the turn chat of May 29th. This is a mayor violation of the constitution.
Details can be found here.

The discussion is started here.

If there is no negative post in this thread about the incident, this thread is closed and no poll is held. If there is a minimum of one negative post, a poll will be held.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am concerned about this violation. Clearly this relates to many issues I, and others, have explored in previous discussions regarding the shortfall of chat decisions.

However, this clearly is a significant problem constitutionally. The law is clear, as since a learning queue was posted by Civinator, only the Science Leader, or his appointed chat rep, could deviate from that queue without a Cabinet Vote. There are damages due to this act, in terms of lost research turns, but in the bigger picture, that is a minimal problem compared to the issue of ignoring posted instructions.

I am confident that no one had evil intent when pushing this through, nevertheless, this is a valid investigation. I would welcome further research and details from the participants as to how this came about.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[Chieftess]

I wanted to follow the science advisor in the turn chat, as the logs show, but there was a spot vote, which overturned it. Even though I was the 5th, and I wasn't 100% sure about going for that tech myself, the majority would have been reached by people currently chatting. And I did say magnatism earlier. Even if I selected mag. like I wanted, it would have been 4 to 1, still a majority for theory of gravity.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I question the need for a spot vote in that situation, and therefore the validity of such a vote.

Nothing critical to the events in that turn session itself would occur that required it. On the other had, the elected leader of that department had left exceptionally clear instructions as to what the queue should be.

This appears, at this early point, to be a situation where those assembled at the chat disagreed with the Department Head, and used their power as chat attendees to override the instructions of that elected leader.

In my opinion, this is a gross violation of our constitution, and highlites the dangers of our chat based game playing.

Again, no ill will meant for those involved, as I am certain they have the best interests of Phoenatica at heart.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[chiefpaco]

Here are the log details. At this point, we had just finished researching Physics:

[20:54] <Chieftess> what's next for science?
[20:54] <donsig> we need a vote on that CT
[20:54] <Chieftess> ok.
[20:55] <Curufinwe> Theory of Gravity, what do you say?
[20:55] <sike> Free Artistry?
[20:55] <Chieftess> Free Artristy in 9, metallurgy in 8...theory and magnet in 12
[20:55] <chiefP> Civanator said Free Artistry or Metallurgy
[20:55] <donsig> NSD says magnatism in firth post
[20:55] <chiefP> oops, missed that. yes
[20:55] <donsig> *first post
[20:55] <Falcon02> I say Theory
[20:55] <Curufinwe> AS do I
[20:56] <donsig> I call for a vote on theory of gravity
[20:56] <Curufinwe> Who wants Theory of Gravity?
[20:56] <Curufinwe> say I if you do
[20:56] <Curufinwe> I
[20:56] <donsig> I
[20:56] <sike> i want sanitation so theory is good
[20:56] <chiefP> I vote against going against civanator
[20:56] <Chieftess> Better shipping, but England may have their area filled.
[20:56] <Curufinwe> Newton's
[20:56] <Chieftess> It's a pangaea map, so no real hope for small islands.
[20:56] <BlueStrider> Newton's sounds good I
[20:56] <Chieftess> I was thinking mag.
[20:57] <Curufinwe> 4 for it
[20:57] <Curufinwe> who wants Magnetism
[20:57] <sike> what's the vote count?
[20:57] <Curufinwe> SAy I
[20:57] <Curufinwe> 4 for theory
[20:57] <Chieftess> mewtons.
[20:57] <Chieftess> We need the science.
[20:57] <Curufinwe> 5 for theory
[20:57] <donsig> one vote a t a time please
[20:57] <Chieftess> I think there's a bug that says we know the secrets..
[20:57] <chiefP> umm, didn't our science advisor say magnetism?
[20:57] <Chieftess> When I try to click th. of gra.
[20:58] <BlueStrider> What happens?
[20:58] <Chieftess> Ayang expands!
[20:58] <donsig> yes, CP but we are trying to fulfill the citizen's wishes by building Newton's University
[20:58] <Chieftess> It says "We know those secrets"
[20:58] <sike> cool
[20:58] <Curufinwe> What, check if we can build NEwton's then
[20:58] <Chieftess> El-Armarna expands!
[20:58] <sike> smartewr than we thought
[20:58] <sike> smarter
[20:58] <chiefP> ok. investigation pending.

 

[Chieftess]

Just to clarify, I'm still not 100% familar with all of the rules, and I thought this spot vote was just like any other.

 

[disorganizer]

ok. we should wait for donsig statement now. as he initiated the poll, he should state why here.

 

[disorganizer]

but one thing: as we see from the chat, chieftess is relieved. donsig startet the vote.
maybe the only thing ct will have to do is get more experience with the chat.

 

[chiefpaco]

I'm concerned about a few facts here:

The vote.

- Was called by the domestic leader. I'm pretty sure he has the authority. I'd rather the player start the vote, so it is easy for them to follow, but that is ok.
- Justification was provided: Wonder building program.
- Not very clear to the voting results. The best I can tell, 4 citizens wanted to research ToG next and 2 seemed against. But there wasn't a yes/no vote to make it clear.

The queue.
- No justification is provided for science techs and there is a clause in the queue that research is debateable.
- The queue is over-ridable by a cabinet vote. Or is it citizen vote? We had a citizen vote in this case.

I'd suggest:
- Science queues be given some reason and discussion prior to game turns.
- Votes be controlled by the player or at least very clearly held by another citizen.
- Facts about the ramifications of a vote be repeated before the vote. We still had some debate going over the merits of the vote during the vote.
- Getting a reaction by Civanator. His queue was changed. What does he think?

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by disorganizer
but one thing: as we see from the chat, chieftess is relieved. donsig startet the vote.
maybe the only thing ct will have to do is get more experience with the chat.

And it was one of my first times playing a full chat.

I've played 2 or 3 partial ones (a couple of turns), and atleast 1 full one.

 

[donsig]

I called for the spot vote since there was no one from the NSD present at the turn chat.

I had posted the following in the NSD thread in the governemnt sub-forum at 5:48 PM (GMT) on May 29.

I have made the two trades and we once again have Indian silk imports. We also gained democracy from the Aztecs.

We are researching physics and will have it in 7 turns since I am upping the research rate. We need Theory of Gravity next and Free Artistry after that in order to implement our wonder building program.

Would the NSD please implement this research order?

Since there was no reply at all, either yeah or nay, from the NSD, I called for the spot vote.

Here is an information poll the domestic dept. conducted regarding

building great wonders.

Here is an information poll the domestic dept. conducted regarding

which wonders should be built.

Here is a citizen discussion started by the domestic department about building wonders.

Given the fierce competition we face in building these wonders and the sentiments put forward by citizens I felt it appropriate to make a push for the required technologies. I asked for NSD authorization and gettig no response I called for a spot vote.

 

[disorganizer]

* in the chat, all votes are citizen-votes. all citizens in the chat are full-voters.
* it is not the player, but the highest rank coc-officer to start the vote. in this case, ct started play as at that time highes coc, then donsig came in. he is higher in the coc, so he was able to start a vote.
i think this all adds to the fact the constitution hase some flaws. but thats life. thats why we discuss here.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

chiefpaco,

You raise excellent points.

I would counter by saying that justification is not provided in many instructions posted in the turn chat instructions themselves. Civinator was the elected representative, and he left clear instructions.

I would guess that the "research is debatable" comment is intended to spur discussion within that thread, and not be used as an open invitation to ignore the research queue during chat. But Civinator can speak to that himself.

I would also like to know more about your comment indicating that some concern about the validity of the vote. From the snippet posted, it appears that you were the only attendee to argue that the queue should have been followed.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[Chieftess]

Also recorded on the first PI thread, Chiefpaco noted that the NSD said research was debatable:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22674

 

[disorganizer]

donsig: do i see it right you changed the research queue to comply to the will of the citizenry of the order of wonder-building?

if yes, good. this should be ok then, maybe a warning.
if no, bad!

second question:
how long was the time between you post in NDS and the chat?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by donsig
I called for the spot vote since there was no one from the NSD present at the turn chat.

Since there was no reply at all, either yeah or nay, from the NSD, I called for the spot vote.

I asked for NSD authorization and gettig no response I called for a spot vote.

Hail donsig!

I voted for you in the Presidential race, and hope that you will prevail.

On this issue though, I am afraid I differ. Given the times posted (and correct me there if I am reading it wrong), it would seem that you allowed about two hours for receiving a response from Civinator.

Given that not everyone can attend chat, and that he had posted clear instructions, I can't see why a spot vote was needed. This is just an example of how the wishes of department heads can be overriden when they cannot attend chat.

Whatever the outcome here, I hope we all recognize that this ongoing issue is a fundamental problem with our game. The ability to call a spot vote to directly ignore instructions from a department in a non-time critical situation, is not a good thing in my view.

Thank you though for being forthright and clear in your reasoning.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[chiefpaco]

I guess we have another issue then. Does the Wonder program qualify as an emergency enough to override a Leader's queue.

I'm for spot votes for handling emergencies, but I don't think we can set a precedent for chat-room changes that are not critical.

It appears the science queue was set at 8:43PM of the day before the chat. This should be enough time for debate. 1 citizen debated the queue before the chat. I think more than one has to object before it is set to a poll, no? Or does the chatroom qualify as a place where it may be seconded/objected?

 

[Civanator]

Well now that i'm on i am a little mad that instructions were not followed. What i meant by "Research is debatable" is to debate before the turn chat. no one questioned the research so the queue should have been followed.

 

[disorganizer]

i had a misinterpretation of the constitution in my post before:
* the citizen-spot-polls in the chat are not defined in the constitution!
* a cabinet-spot-vote would have been needed to override the queue in the sense of the constitution.

the question will be: how will citizen-spot-votes be counted?

to other posts: are post-times local-timezoned by the forum? i think yes, so be careful with the times!

 

[punkbass2000]

I thing that irks me, though, is that, IIRC, we've never had a poll concerning where to go with science.