Public Investigation #6: Chat Poll Ignored

[disorganizer]

@Bill:
It was no shouting. Just wanted to point out some things without the ['s.

You are right. The Player can stop at any time at will. No rule there. I dont get your point with second violation though.

But donsig did not do this. He wanted to continue playing.

He is only investigated here for ignoring his 2 votes:
1st vote for the trade
2nd vote for the stopping

he wouldnt have needed the 2nd to stop, but if he calls a vote, he has to follow it under any circumstances.

i think the rain-part can be left out now as she complied under protest. she just took the wrong vehicle for her action and didnt think about consequences (if she would not have posted the poll, i would have campainged impeaching her, too).

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Strider
I think the game could only be stopped by the current department's represented at the turn chat. A vote could decide if or if not they should stop.

I suggest that the player can stop at any time, and that a consensus of the other players may decide that one of them should begin playing where the original player left off.

 

[disorganizer]

i must again insist on staying on topic!
this is no constitutional debatte.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

There is nothing in the constitution that covers this, and I do think it has been an understanding that one of the compromises of allowing the unbalanced chat turn process to continue was that the turns would be stopped when an issue worth discussing in forums arose.

Clearly it is at least logical that the DP, in this case the President, can make that call.

The second claim of constitutional violation against donsig should be dismissed immediately.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
There is nothing in the constitution that covers this, and I do think it has been an understanding that one of the compromises of allowing the unbalanced chat turn process to continue was that the turns would be stopped when an issue worth discussing in forums arose.

Clearly it is at least logical that the DP, in this case the President, can make that call.

The second claim of constitutional violation against donsig should be dismissed immediately.

I agree. I do say he is guilty of ignoring the results of the trade vote, however. This is quite obvious, and Donsig was aware he was doing it. Yet, I still insist that the punishment suit the crime, and since he violated an untested section of the constitution, I believe we should be lenient.

 

[disorganizer]

i looked thru the first post:
there is no second violation stated.

we only talk about ignoring the 2 votes.

 

[Immortal]

"unbalanced chat turn process"

I believe I agree with you there, however the chat turn is still an important part of the game, the way I see it, we may do this:

Voice everyone, the player continues to play the game, but never holds a spot vote, if we are declared war upon, we stop the game immediately. If a wonder is completed by a rival civ, we stop the game, anything that will require debate (probably quite a bit) we should stop the game.

Time consuming? Yes, the only choice for those who would like both? You tell me

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
i must again insist on staying on topic!
this is no constitutional debatte.

Of course this is a constitutional debate, that is what you are claiming donsig violated.

I apologize that I am not accepting your interpretation at face value, but I do have my own opinion here.

For example, constitution clearly states this:

Section C: The Executive Branch

Article 1: The President is responsible for actually playing the game. He/she also gathers info from other Department Heads on how the game is to be played.

Article 2: The President may break ties and make decisions that haven't been made by department heads.

Section O: Chat Turn Rules

Article 3: The Designated Player reserves the right to use Cabinet Votes instead of Citizen Spot Polls.

Therefore, in theory, the DP as President has the power in this case to use a cabinet vote instead of the spot poll, and the President has power to veto cabinet votes, so................I would say it is at least arguable that the President did nothing wrong at all. Especially in an environment where two department heads did not provide instructions (based upon discussion in their forum) regarding the trade of a tech being discovered that turn.

It's not necessarily what I believe, but I am illustrating that this is very much a constitutional debate. And, as opposed to Rain's violation, which was much clearer, donsig's violation is not so clear cut as you believe.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[disorganizer]

so ok. but he did not use a cabinet vote. he used a citizen spot vote. he had a result, and then ignored it.
thats a violation of Article 3. And other articles regarding polls.

Nobody should talk about wheter the rules make sense. They are here. We must follow. Punishment if not.
So clear violation->guilty for me.

Btw:
Where is the point in you copy of the constitution? I dont see how it relates to this.

And another thing:
Constitutional debatte is not about which paragraph he violated but whether this should be implemented that or this way. It is nonsense to discuss this in here.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I think all polls, posted anywhere, ask for the will of the people and the poster has a knowledge of whom they will be polling. How else can many citizens agree on common issues? It is the people's duty to respond in such polls. You posted the poll and then cancelled it. Do you understand how that can make people feel? Poll posters have a responsibility to fulfill. No matter how this hearing goes, my trust and confidence in your polling ability is gone.

I wanted to use Chiefpaco's words as an introduction to (what I hope will be) my last post in my defense.

Do I understand how cancelling a poll 'can make people feel"? Probably not at this point because from the time this arose in the turn chat I was preoccupied with my own feelings. It was quite obvious from the start that I was in the middle and subject to flak no matter which course I took. Also, no matter which course I took I had to do something I did not want to do. Now, I'm in the middle of another investigation. This thread is up to five pages. I am astounded by the energy we spend on investigations. If only we spent a fraction of this energy on deciding policy for the Civ 3 game we are trying to play! No, right now I cannot understand how cancelling a poll can make people feel.

The turn chat was ended and that cannot be changed. All I can say in my defense here is that I thought a vote was required to end the chat and I thought all votes in the chat had to be citizen votes. That's why the only 'out' I saw was to hold a vote to end the chat. In the end I did not proceed because eyrei's point that this particular issue should be discussed in the forum made more sense to me than rushing into a trade that we would still be able to do anyway after sleeping on it. If I had known I had the right, as designated player, to just stop without a vote I would have done so without calling the vote.

I enter the following in to evidence regarding the first poll:

[22:32] <Chieftess> Sell med.
[22:33] <chiefP> try India or Iro. we can get those techs
plus gold
[22:33] <eyrei> that sounds like a forum discussion to me

...

[22:37] <Chieftess> I think we should have a spot vote on
selling medicine.
[22:37] <punkbass2000> I agree
[22:37] <donsig> ok
[22:37] <chiefP> sure, just to sell medicine
[22:37] <donsig> all those in favor of selling medicine
vote 'yes'
[22:37] <punkbass2000> yes
[22:37] <donsig> vote = no
[22:37] <chiefP> yes
[22:37] <Chieftess> How many sheilds is ToE?
[22:37] <eyrei> i think we should stop
[22:38] <eyrei> trading med could be a major turning point
[22:38] <Chieftess> that's 3 to stop.
[22:38] <eyrei> it needs to be debated
[22:38] <sike2> vote = no
[22:38] <donsig> let's see if selling med even passes the
spot vote
[22:38] <chiefP> I don't think we should stop on trade
deals
[22:38] <Chieftess> vote = yes

Now, technically, according to the constitution only the designated player can call for a spot vote. Even though Cheiftess suggested the vote and punkbass2000 agreed with her suggestion I can see the how I am left holding the bag as the one who called the vote. In retrospect it appears that I could have simply ignored the call for the vote, ignored eyrei's calls that this issue should be brought to the forum, just ignored them all, done what I thought was best for Phoenatica which was press enter and go to the next turn without selling medicine. I could have played the policy I wanted and continued with the turn chat which I also wanted and no one would have had any grounds to investigate me! Rather than take the game into my own hands I opted to bring the controversy to the forums.

We must face the fact that our rules are not what they could be. In light of this I ask that our citizens judge this case not by the letter of our constitution but according to the spirit of the democracy game.

 

[Cyc]

I accept the President's plea for mercy. I move that this investigation be closed and the President receive a final warning. He mistepped in his duties as DP, and after that, in the flaming tailspin of the turn chat, parachuted to safety. I'm not saying he did the right thing, I'm saying he did the best he could. The man had the brass to run for the Office of the President of Phoenatica. Only four us were able to commit to such an expenditure of time and effort, and Donsig, aside from this last chat, has done so with grace and professionalism.
Let's move on people. It's obvious we need to work on other areas of the game, such as the constitiution reform (the splitting), the polling standards, chat rules, etc. We do not need to hone our investigative skills any further. Donsig sees his mistake, he has asked for mercy. A final warning should suffice. Let's be done with it.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I fully agree with Cyc. Let's close this and move on. I for one would like to see a strategy formulated and agreed to on winning the game.

This incident has again highlighted the shortcomings of the chat turn process. I hope that we will continue to consider significant reforms to that flawed process.

Bill
...with a nice tan after racing my waverunner at 70mph yesterday

 

[punkbass2000]

Yes, this shows the flaws of turnchats, but I'm not sure what a better solution would be. Would it have been better to have a single player? If I had been the player, I would have taken the trade without thought, as I don't think that it's the big deal that some think it to be. Would it be better to play only one turn at a time? Perhaps, though this would be incredibly slow, even compared to the current speed of play. 2 turns/week = about 5 years/game.

 

[Zur]

I have not read the thread in detail since I'm travelling, but here's my 2
pence:

An issue is whether breaking/bending the constitution is OK if it is
"better" for the game(play). IMO, no. A violation of the constitution by
an official is a serious breach of citizens' trust. If neccesary, the
constitution should be changed beforehand to allow for these
circumstances, instead of going around the constitution when these
circumstances arise.

 

[disorganizer]

@donsig:
to get you to the point: we dont investigate about stopping the chat.
we investigate that a poll was called, and the results were then ignored.
if you would have stopped the game before the vote was called by you, all would have been ok. if you would have followed the poll result and have sold medicine, then the initiator of the poll and maybe the voters with yes could have been impeached (well, this is the bad side about law and order. you shall not bend it).

as i see no more point being made in discussing this, i will soon post the guilty/unguilty poll (even if im not the owner of this investigation) to not make this thread grow to infinity.

 

[disorganizer]

DISCUSSION CLOSED
guilty unguilty poll to be found here.
discussion about eventual measures to be taken should be in the poll-thread!