Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I beat you to it Veera! See my note above where I point out that this proposal would be widely sought if it had a proviso for RPG gold.
Quick Chats?
- Thread starter Bill_in_PDX
- Start date
I beat you to it Veera! See my note above where I point out that this proposal would be widely sought if it had a proviso for RPG gold.
Shaitan
der Besucher
My only concern is that this looks like what we have been notorious for in the past. A problem rears its head and we pass legislation that fits that exact problem but not all of the problems that it should address. We need to look at the root of the problem, not the symptoms.
The identified problem is that there are occasions when a single action (or maybe a limited number of actions) will open up a Pandora's box of opportunities. We need to be able to take that one approved action while allowing time for discussion of the ramifications that are opened up by that action before the actual turn chat.
Does this single action need to be public? Why? Our rules call for all actions being in a public chat, that's why. Does this restriction make sense for a single action that has already been approved? NO.
Does the restriction make sense in the case of preturn, where all the DP should be doing is following the already approved instructions that are posted in the chat instruction thread? NO. In fact, during the chats where I was DP this didn't happen. The preturn instructions were completed before the chat started. I kept a careful log and posted the log at the beginning of the chat.
The basic problem is that our blanket statement that all actions must be performed in public chats is too restrictive. There are times where efficiency far outweighs any benefit of the play being made while online.
My basic recommendation is to change the Constitution to read Turns will played out in a public chat. This ensures that actual play is done publicly but allows things like the preturn and quick turn action to be performed efficiently. Once this basic rule is corrected it will be easy to regulate through laws.
The identified problem is that there are occasions when a single action (or maybe a limited number of actions) will open up a Pandora's box of opportunities. We need to be able to take that one approved action while allowing time for discussion of the ramifications that are opened up by that action before the actual turn chat.
Does this single action need to be public? Why? Our rules call for all actions being in a public chat, that's why. Does this restriction make sense for a single action that has already been approved? NO.
Does the restriction make sense in the case of preturn, where all the DP should be doing is following the already approved instructions that are posted in the chat instruction thread? NO. In fact, during the chats where I was DP this didn't happen. The preturn instructions were completed before the chat started. I kept a careful log and posted the log at the beginning of the chat.
The basic problem is that our blanket statement that all actions must be performed in public chats is too restrictive. There are times where efficiency far outweighs any benefit of the play being made while online.
My basic recommendation is to change the Constitution to read Turns will played out in a public chat. This ensures that actual play is done publicly but allows things like the preturn and quick turn action to be performed efficiently. Once this basic rule is corrected it will be easy to regulate through laws.
donsig
Low level intermediary
When I was president in DG1 I also did some of the pre-turn stuff before the chats. Shaitan's suggestion is a very elegant one.
I hope it won't throw a monkey wrench into the works but if we're to discuss changing the constitution I would just repeal the constitutional clause relating to turn chats. That would just as easily solve the problems Shaitan elucidated for us and it would make turn chats themselves optional. I know I'll be booed and hissed for the suggestion but the demo game would be better off if turn chats were history. Eliminating them would not mean the end of #demogame for the chat room would still be an effective way of getting people together to mull over ideas. The chat room would serve us much better if we used it for public meetings or departmental meetings in order to come up with ideas for discussion threads and polls for the forums.
I hope it won't throw a monkey wrench into the works but if we're to discuss changing the constitution I would just repeal the constitutional clause relating to turn chats. That would just as easily solve the problems Shaitan elucidated for us and it would make turn chats themselves optional. I know I'll be booed and hissed for the suggestion but the demo game would be better off if turn chats were history. Eliminating them would not mean the end of #demogame for the chat room would still be an effective way of getting people together to mull over ideas. The chat room would serve us much better if we used it for public meetings or departmental meetings in order to come up with ideas for discussion threads and polls for the forums.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Uhm... the constitution DOES say exactly that.
What are you getting at?
donsig
Low level intermediary
Article K of the constitution reads: Game actions will be played out during a public turn chat.
I still think we'd be better off just repealing that article.
I still think we'd be better off just repealing that article.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Oh, I get it *actions* vs. *turns*. Makes sense, we could just change or repeal that article.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Exactly. "Turns" mean you better not press that big red candy like button unless you're online in the chat compared to "actions" which means don't do anything, no matter that the actions were already decided for the preturn, quick turn, whatever.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Shaitan has a point. I know Chieftess has said she would set build queues beforehand in DG1. That would mean the article is already taken in a general sense, because if you strictly interpret it a few of us have already disobeyed it (myself included). I would agree, then, with calls for a slight change to the article.
However (and I know donsig expects this already), I would not support a repeal of the article. If you've played the game in a system without TC's you'd be suprised at the amount of power you have. My personal experience is that TC's not only increase citizen involvment, but prevent mistakes from occuring. An excellent example is that last time I played the game in the Civ2 Demogame. I accidentilly caused important settlers to be disbanded, forgot to deliver a caravan, and could do whatever I wanted without input involving the military and foreign affairs. Then again, that's a typical turn for anyone who plays closed session games.
However (and I know donsig expects this already), I would not support a repeal of the article. If you've played the game in a system without TC's you'd be suprised at the amount of power you have. My personal experience is that TC's not only increase citizen involvment, but prevent mistakes from occuring. An excellent example is that last time I played the game in the Civ2 Demogame. I accidentilly caused important settlers to be disbanded, forgot to deliver a caravan, and could do whatever I wanted without input involving the military and foreign affairs. Then again, that's a typical turn for anyone who plays closed session games.
FortyJ
Deity
Do they know about this?
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Gosh Octavian... that doesn't sound like a typical turn to me
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
*Note to self: Do not bring up bad examples of my past...
Oh come on, everybody makes mistakes while civing!
Oh come on, everybody makes mistakes while civing!
Plexus
Architeuthidae puericomedentis
Yay! Bad examples of yore! Well, I have never done anything wrong in the DG.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Hmmm.... I remember getting Phoenatica involved in a war with Babylon as DP in DG1's last chat. Not sure if it was a mistake or intentional. But that was a public chat...
I would support a constitutional change as suggested by Shaitan though I think we should have a seperate discussion thread on that topic. Something along the lines of Article K: should we keep it, change it or repeal it?. That discussion could be followed by a poll with the same question. That would be followed up by:
a) nothing if keep it wins the poll
b) a new discussion thread and official amendment poll on how to change it if that option wins the first poll
c) an official amendment poll to repeal if that wins the first poll
If we do change or repeal the article we could then revisit this thread as we may still want chat and quick chat guidelines in the CoS.
But that was a public chat...I would support a constitutional change as suggested by Shaitan though I think we should have a seperate discussion thread on that topic. Something along the lines of Article K: should we keep it, change it or repeal it?. That discussion could be followed by a poll with the same question. That would be followed up by:
a) nothing if keep it wins the poll
b) a new discussion thread and official amendment poll on how to change it if that option wins the first poll
c) an official amendment poll to repeal if that wins the first poll
If we do change or repeal the article we could then revisit this thread as we may still want chat and quick chat guidelines in the CoS.
Shaitan
der Besucher
CON
Turns will played out in a public chat.
COL
Turn zero instructions that have been posted in the chat instruction thread may be carried out by the President at any time, at his/her discretion. If any action are taken, a new save will be uploaded and linked in the chat instruction thread and the President will post a description of what actions have been done.
Turns will played out in a public chat.
COL
Turn zero instructions that have been posted in the chat instruction thread may be carried out by the President at any time, at his/her discretion. If any action are taken, a new save will be uploaded and linked in the chat instruction thread and the President will post a description of what actions have been done.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
This I also like.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Sorry I stuck that out there without supporting text. I was being rushed out the door.
My suggestion above would allow what we need for the Quick Chat as well as making it possible for the Pres to take care of things like build queues, etc, legally and efficiently while preserving the necessity for actual turns to be held in the public chat. It also puts the discretion for taking actions pre-chat in the hands of the President. Although that does add power to the office of President I think it's appropriate as the President, as default DP, is already responsible for doing these actions and for deciding if a chat should be ended at any time. That is, the President is already the person with the powers closest to what is added here.
My suggestion above would allow what we need for the Quick Chat as well as making it possible for the Pres to take care of things like build queues, etc, legally and efficiently while preserving the necessity for actual turns to be held in the public chat. It also puts the discretion for taking actions pre-chat in the hands of the President. Although that does add power to the office of President I think it's appropriate as the President, as default DP, is already responsible for doing these actions and for deciding if a chat should be ended at any time. That is, the President is already the person with the powers closest to what is added here.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I give up. EK - what is that icon? It looks like a cut out of a sausage biscuit wrapped in celophane.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
It's a mint humbug
Shaitan
der Besucher
donsig
Low level intermediary
I like Shaitan's proposal, too. So as soon as term 5 starts can we do an amendment poll? Do we need to post the proposed poll here? Let me see... The CoL change is a council vote?
