Public Investigation #6: Chat Poll Ignored

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by eyrei
I think some of you are missing my point. My point is that even a consensus of eight people does not qualify as a majority in a group of thirty.

In an ideal world, yes. But you have to remember that this is the Internet, and it is not Real Life. People come from different time zones, and have different lifestyles, so they aren't always going to be here on Wednesdays and Sundays at 7:00 PM EST. This is a game, not real life. People can choose to play if they want. We have no way of knowning if, of the 30 people we have, 20 dropped out. (other than they haven't posted for a while) Let's take a real life example: The US Government.

You have the 3 branches, maybe a thousand or so people making decisions. The US has 280 million people. That's 1 person representing 280,000 people. More if you just include the congress and senate. Why isn't there rioting in the streets? Because the people expect the politicans to vote according to their views.

The same goes for the demogame. The people vote on who they want because they support their views. If they are not clear, we should make them clear for the next elections.

Therefore, if even one citizen feels that the group at the turn chat is not representative of the total population, he/she has the right to call for the turns to stop.

Can you see the chaos that would ensue? Because of one person, a discussion would need to be held on every aspect of play. For Example:

Wed. - Should we really move that worker north instead of east?
Sun. - Should that cavalry be scouting the Chinese city of Cumae?
2nd Wed. - Shouldn't that square be irragated? It wasn't given a debate.
2nd Sun. - Should we really lower science? We need more money for XYZ improvement
3rd Wed. - Oh, and let's debate on the XYZ improvement now that we have more money
3rd Sun. - Oh, wait, not in THAT city! NO! We need another citizen discussion!

-- End of Term --

You get the picture.. (I hope).

 

[Chieftess]

BTW, as for the 1 person rule, I think the same should be thought about for the PIs. PIs should be started by 2 people (to prevent any 1 to 1 grudges).

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Also, do not put the trade results on trial. Whether or not the trade is made, the citizen vote at the chat should stand as the official "will of the citizens". After all, the trade vote was clearly voted upon and the "abandonment" vote was not clear to the point of stoppage. Our rules in this process are clear. All unplanned events during chat are brought to the chatroom and voted on. If the citizens feel the decision is too important, they may abandon the game. However, a consensus is needed in either case.

We have not missed any oppurunity to make the trades voted on. As of now that spot vote is the only indication we have of the *will of the people*. If however a new forum poll shows that more citizens oppose the trade than favor it then the newer poll over-rides the spot vote. This trade deal does need to be on trial, if only to reaffirm that our spot vote procedure is a valid one.

Our rules on ending a turn chat are not clear. They request to stop was made even before the first vote (on the trade) was even cast.

I am also a bit concerned about using the attendees of the turn chat as a representation of our citizens as a whole. While all 8 people ate the chat at the time of these votes are citizens, are they all not also government officials? (The eight are: Chiefpaco, Chieftess, curfinwe, donsig, eyri. punkbass2000, Rain and sike.)

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
The lack of control and decision-making on the part of the player this round is shocking. The player must be prepared to announce precise votes after due course and follow them immediately. While the votes were discussed and called, they were not followed. Furthermore, citizens should know better than to drag on and on about the concequences of not voting the same as they did.

Spot votes in the turn chat have always been very messy. We have not had much problems in the past becasue the votes were on relatively minor issues with a strong majority of those present voting the same way. I have always been prepared to and have tried to implement precise votes but the *noise* in the room interferes.

I am quite close to instituting the following policy at turn chats:

1) devoice everyone but myself
2) do pre-turn and report in the room as usual
3) voice all present one at a time and ask if there are any concerns or issues to be settled before ending turn zero
4) if there are, everone can be voiced for a discussion
5) after discussion devoice everyone else again
6) summarize results of discussion and implement any action neded per discussion
7) If a spot vote was needed then it will be called for and each individual will be voiced in turn to vote and then devoiced
8) results of vote would be implemented
9) press enter and make reports startinf turn cycle over again

This would be alot of work for me and would extend the turn chat time but if we need to have a professional style meeting then this is the only way I can see to accomplish it.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
The harm done is great. The same rights are applied to the citizens in the turn chat as they are in the forum. I would stand for the same treason should a forum vote be similarly ignored. In this case, two votes were ignored. The power of one or two citizens in the turn chat disrupted the round and brought the game to a dreadful and contentious halt.

Yes, the same rights are applied to citizens in the turn chat as in the forum. We have been discussing just how to properly determine the *will of the people* ever since we were rushing libraires under despotism. There is a polling standards commision and a third version of our constitution under consideration.. unfortunately, only Cyc, disorganizer, Shaitan and myself ever seem to add to these discussions. My point is that we have come to the conclusion that even some polls in the forum do not accurately reveal the *will of the people*. If that conclusion is accurate then how can we begin to think that spot votes in the chat represent the *will of the people*?

In any event, what is wrong with stopping the process and asking for more input?

 

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by donsig
I am also a bit concerned about using the attendees of the turn chat as a representation of our citizens as a whole. While all 8 people ate the chat at the time of these votes are citizens, are they all not also government officials? (The eight are: Chiefpaco, Chieftess, curfinwe, donsig, eyri. punkbass2000, Rain and sike.)

What is wrong with having them as government officials. I was only representing a chat rep for culture and science and am considered below any one else, thus I think of myself as an ordinary citizen who assists these departments, I was not voted in but I was chosen by the leaders (Strider and Justus) REally what is wrong with that.

 

[chiefpaco]

Donsig: In any event, what is wrong with stopping the process and asking for more input?...

Are you asking me? I believe I answered that in the particular piece you quoted.

Donsig: If anyone requests a stoppage I will listen to both sides and decide on my own whether to continue or not.

The potential for one citizen to make decisions on this does not follow with the current concept of this game. The President has tie-breaking power, not absolute power nor veto power on citizen voting.

Donsig: My point is that we have come to the conclusion that even some polls in the forum do not accurately reveal the *will of the people*. If that conclusion is accurate then how can we begin to think that spot votes in the chat represent the *will of the people*?

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.

May I also say you that your chat proposal is unconstitutional? Are you going for a record?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by chiefpaco



It is the people's duty to respond in such polls.

In a chat poll, the majority of the people cannot fulfill this duty and right because they are not present. Personally, in Donsig's place, I would not have even called for either vote. As soon as it was found that we could trade medicine for a significant amount, I would have stopped playing and started a discussion on the forum.

I still do not see how anyone can say that Donsig harmed anyone in Phoenatica by stopping the turns, except possibly the pride of those who were in attendance. The turns were stopped so that the rest of the country would have a chance to discuss and vote on an important issue!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
May I also say you that your chat proposal is unconstitutional? Are you going for a record?

Do you have a better *constitutional* suggestion for the designated player being able to maintain some control in the turn chat? We are at the point where those in the chat room do not even quiet down when a vote has been called. Spot votes are confused and confusing. As I said in an earlier post we have avoided this kind of investigation so far becasue we have not had any close spot votes.

As for the constitutionality of my chat proposal, here are some articles from section O:

"Article 4: Spaming, lobbying, repetive questions and any other unnecessary traffic in the chat is forbidden.

Article 7: The chat operators hold the right to devoice all non-officials if the chat gets too confusing or is disturbed by someone permanently. The decision for this is taken by the Designated Player.

Article 9: During turn-chat, #civfanatics is still open for totally free discussions. Departments or special interest groups can also open private discussion rooms."

If order cannot be maintained in the demogame chat room then steps must be taken so that we can have order.

 

[Cyc]

No, Eyrei. The turns were stopped because you thought you could glean more support for your poltical views in the forum. Keep in mind I agreed with your political views on the issue. I believe selling medicine is a dumb idea. (sorry!) Forget Sci Meth and wonders, Sanitation will allow us to expand quickly, ensuring that we will achieve tech superiority, military advantage, and a number of other factors that will allow us to dominate in this game. (BTW, not domination.)
I have read pretty much all of this and was at the chat. This whole scenario is getting out of control. I think we all need to stop and step back from the situation to look at the big picture.
We are in the lead in the important categories of the game. Our Railroads are almost complete. Our science advantage is on que and fairly even with the AI. By watching where we step, we could come out of this smelling like a rose. But we need to stop bickering like children over candy.
Donsig made an error in not abiding by the votes he called for. That is a very dangerous position for anyone to put themselves in. Luckily for him, he is the President. As such, he has some executive privilige in some decision making. He used this executive privilige last night, after his attempts to stear the game failed. In all honesty, after all that happened, stopping the game may have been a good thing. Ignoring the votes was not.
Chiefpaco, Chieftess, Rain, and Curufinwe make very valid points and I agree with most if not all of them. Eyrei is sweating votes and trying to glean support with his new discussion. Shame on you Eyrei (although, politically, it was a smart move). And Cyc is shaking his head.
We are a beautiful Nation. We have wonderful citizens. We have elections that allow us to put people in office so they can make decisions for us. That's the name of the game. We try to make rules that keep us within the boundries that we, ourselves created. The people at the chat did represent the citizenry. The citizenry was called on by the President to vote on the trade deals and the citizenry responded to that call. After that, political differences brought about chaos, and the President ended the chat.
Now the questions at hand are about the chat votes being valid. To me that is the main concern. The President handled the fiasco to the best of his ability and then bowed out. Besides his doing a great job as President, we can only ask so much of this man. The attempts to swing public opinion away from the votes by discussion of the trade integrity is not a reputable approach to the situation. Please let us calm down and think about this a bit.

Everyone has valid points and everyone has deep emotions. I'm worried about our game as a whole. Please think about this. I will continue later.

 

[Strider]

Cyc could be the "Presidential speech maker."

 

[eyrei]

No, Eyrei. The turns were stopped because you thought you could glean more support for your poltical views in the forum.


Cyc, I supported those trades.

Chiefpaco, Chieftess, Rain, and Curufinwe make very valid points and I agree with most if not all of them. Eyrei is sweating votes and trying to glean support with his new discussion. Shame on you Eyrei (although, politically, it was a smart move). And Cyc is shaking his head.


I am not sure where you are coming from here. Personally, I see little validity in much of what has been said here. I am not sure what you mean by 'sweating votes'. The only political purpose I have here is to ensure that these issues regarding the actual game are discussed on the forums rather than made during the turns. If you are referring to the other discussions I started, I say that is a major difference between myself and many of Donsig's accusers. While I am paying a great deal of attention to these proceedings, I am also continuing to do my job. Several of the members of the cabinet have decided to boycot discussions of these trades, even though they should be quite interested. They seem to want to avoid a citizens vote, because, should the results be contrary to what they hope, this investigation could turn quite ugly for them, as well.

 

[Strider]

eyrei
They seem to want to avoid a citizens vote, because, should the results be contrary to what they hope, this investigation could turn quite ugly for them, as well.

I think the majority of the citizens will vote NOT to trade medicine, because of this reason:

Cyc
Keep in mind I agreed with your political views on the issue. I believe selling medicine is a dumb idea. (sorry!) Forget Sci Meth and wonders, Sanitation will allow us to expand quickly, ensuring that we will achieve tech superiority, military advantage, and a number of other factors that will allow us to dominate in this game.

I agree that sanation would help and through the current science queue does not have sanation it is only because the citizens voted it in. In trading medicine we offer other civs a quicker route into getting these bonus's.

eyrei
The only political purpose I have here is to ensure that these issues regarding the actual game are discussed on the forums rather than made during the turns.

It sounds to me that you just wanted to get more supporters on your side.

 

[Cyc]

Quickly, Eyrei, before I leave for RL concerns, a secondary vote on the trades would really be a mistake on your part right now. It would appear that you want to negate a prior citizen vote with a second one of your chosing. Be careful.

 

[eyrei]

I think the majority of the citizens will vote NOT to trade medicine,

This is yet to be seen. I honestly wouldn't place a bet either way.




It sounds to me that you just wanted to get more supporters on your side.

Supporters for what? The trades? I was for the trades during the turns! If I was furthering my own agenda in this instance, I would be foolish to stand in the way of them going through before anyone could say otherwise. However, I wanted to give everyone a chance to have their say.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Cyc
Quickly, Eyrei, before I leave for RL concerns, a secondary vote on the trades would really be a mistake on your part right now. It would appear that you want to negate a prior citizen vote with a second one of your chosing. Be careful.

What are you talking about? Currently my vote is for those trades to be made!

 

[Strider]

eyrei
This is yet to be seen. I honestly wouldn't place a bet either way.

That's were the I THINK come's in

example:

Strider
I think the majority of the citizens will vote NOT to trade medicine,

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Cyc
Quickly, Eyrei, before I leave for RL concerns, a secondary vote on the trades would really be a mistake on your part right now. It would appear that you want to negate a prior citizen vote with a second one of your chosing. Be careful.

Nice.

I can see it now..

<donsig> Ok, India trade deal complete
<ChiefP> Now to Iro.
<Eyrei> No! We need another vote on Iro BEFORE we complete the trade! To the forums!




Ditto for Babylon, and others.

 

[Strider]

Cyc
Quickly, Eyrei, before I leave for RL concerns, a secondary vote on the trades would really be a mistake on your part right now. It would appear that you want to negate a prior citizen vote with a second one of your chosing. Be careful.

Good Job Cyc

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Having read the thread and the chat, a few comments to add. I suspect all of you are aware that I am opposed to turn chat. Just so you know my biases up front.

My views:

1) donsig was within his rights as the active player and President to end the turn whenever he felt it was appropriate.

2) Some have postulated that if we stop for this decision, the slippery slope theory would dictate that eventually we would stop for all decisions and the game would take a LONG time. First, what would be the problem with the game taking a longer time, assuming it doesn't get silly? Secondly, there is huge difference between trading a key technology such as Medicine, and moving workers around. I think the President or DP would be well within their rights to make the call when a decision warrents forum involvement.

3) I am disappointed that there is much discussion around preserving the constitutional rights of those at turn chat. I think it is far more important to preserve the consitutional rights of the many more citizens who cannot attend chat and who use the forums.

4) We have a non-elected citizen who now feels that he alone can fully dictate the rules of this chat, which is grossly wrong, and secondly our President wishes to impose chat rules that would be drastic as well, but at least I would support an elected official's wherewithall to institute such rules. Obviously this would be a non-issue if we didn't use a chat.

5) Frankly none of this would be too big a deal had our Science and Trade departments posted their policies regarding this tech and trading. I fail to see how it is right to grill our President when he inherited the problem from two departments. It is at least a shared blame.

6) Given my support for donsig, I will say that it was poor form to call for the vote and then ignore it. Nevertheless, in the end, it is my opinion that a decision such as that should have been discussed within the forums, and the right answer was arrived at even if in a clumsy manner.

I feel this investigation should be shunted over to a further discussion on the relative ineffectiveness of turn chats.

Anyone is welcome to counterargue as desired ;-)

Bill
....still in PDX