Refining the Turn Chat

[chiefpaco]

I'd like to discuss anything we can do to refine the Turn Chat itself here. I think it was a controversial point of game 1. Any ideas on how to improve it (other than making them optional, there's already a thread on that)?

Here is one part that I think should go:

The "Over-riding spot votes".

I think this is one reason some citizens do not like the Turn Chats. I don't think the DP with citizens in tow should be able to easily change build queues, science queues, etc... This allows the DP to unload the responsibility of making these changes to the citizens attending the chat. I think I have seen a few cases where a cheerful group of turn chatters have perhaps gone overboard with their power here and I am surprised a few governors and leaders did not take offense.

If I could change it, I would have it so that only the DP can change these things. Here is the passage of the current CoL, Section 3B:

B. Administrative Council Vote
2. Affirmative result overrules an elected official’s instructions and decisions for game play.

By putting the responsibility right on the DP, I think the DP would think more carefully about changing instructions and there would be fewer changes during the chat. After all, who knows who is in the chat? Why should they do the job of the elected leaders? Why did we elect the leaders? The DP could still be able to ask for input and of course, note any changes. I would just like to make it a bit more difficult to make these changes. Nevermind the fact that dropping a few votes will shorten the long Turn Chat time.

I am not proposing an alteration of chat votes for the purpose of deciding on new events or those not covered by instructions. These issues should still be decided as democratically as possible.

 

[Octavian X]

I think that the overriding spot votes are a good mechanism. This lets the process more open to the chatters. It would be possible, if I am understanding your proposal correctly, for the DP to change a city's queue without anyone knowing. The more the citizens, or anyone at all, are involved, the better.

 

[disorganizer]

why dont we define the chat polls as informational polls? no rules for them, nothing to follow.
the only polls left would be cabinet polls, which should be held as is.

the system of the spot votes was implemented to not let the dp decide on his on on topics. so as for example a popup with a map-demand goes up, the dp would be blamable anyhow because if he accepts or declines, there will always be some people complaining he didnt act in the will of citizenry. the only way to prevent massive pi-ing is holding spot votes. but hey, there are also quick-votes in the constitution.


why dont we just act our chat as if it was not there? we could really use the spot votes only for popup events and force the game to return on forum for every other event. only unsettled build queues will need to be set at the game by the citizens there (well, after all its the governors fault himself if he didnt set them, so he cant complain).


This would total to the following rules:
* buld queues are settled by spot vote if not defined or running out
* popup events are decided by spot vote
* NO override of any kind in the chat. an override needs to be polled at at the forum
* chat will stop on any event needing input from citizenry

 

[Octavian X]

We need overrides in the chat.
For example, a new technology could be discovered. This would pave the way for a more beneficial improvment then one currently under construction that the governor could not forsee. For example, a colosseum could be under construction when monotheism, allowing cathedrals. We all agree that cathedrals are generally preferable to colosseums. Thus, a spot council vote would be used to make this better improvment. Other examples that a spot vote should be used are queues running out, making deals, etc. There is no need to pause that game for these matters that would only end up being approved by the citizenry in a poll.
Also, we can have trouble sometimes approving things in a forum council vote. As the council vote to approve me as chief justice showed, council members are always ready to vote quickly. This becomes worsened by the fact that the school season for most is beginning again.
My only real arguement is that we should make sure we at least get 10 turns in on non-eventful chats. Anything less would just get boring and mundane.

 

[disorganizer]

octavian: if nothing happens, we would even get 20-30 turns in... or indefinite...
but discovering a new technology can never be unplanned except you get it from a trade.
in the later case, maybe going back to forum discussion would be good.
i know we will then have a slower start, but who sais this is bad? it will give us time to dicsuss things in more detail in the forum + gives people the opportunity to be absent for 3 days without missing a whole era ;-)
also, making a slower game will give us the opportunity to make more "local politics" like polls on local issues (moods, improovements, build queues).

 

[Octavian X]

My point in the slower game is everything gets dull. Even right now. Why do you think that some of the council are absent, and haven't even posted in this forum in a few days? A game wasn't going on. Discussions on laws aren't exactly the most exciting this. The only people who really discuss things like we're discussing now are people like us. I haven't seen a newer citizen this involved in the game at this point. Most citizens just expect others, like Shaitan, to tell them what to do. That or we're just intimidating them.

People just aren't interested without a game, nor if the game is too slow, either. The only thing that should stop a chat before ten turns is up is declaration of war by anohter civ. You know that for anything else, all that would happen in a poll of the citizenry would result in the same decision made in the turn chat.

 

[disorganizer]

The problem now is
a) the game is officially over, so many left for a few days
b) the discussion on other things did not start directly after or even just before the last chat, so many people thought nothing would happen for the next weeks

if we would get down to half the rate we have now sometimes, i think it would not be a problem. we would only go down to lower rates IF something happens to be discussed, so there will always be some discussion at the forum. Of course, if nothing happens we will run as many turns as possible, and IMHO there should be no upper limit at all then (like 30 turns waiting for a tech with nothing elso to do, all build queues settled, which will hopefully never happen).
The point is that even with a more flexible chat, the game will be exiting and not get boring, as long as we only come to the forum to discuss things (which will be the only reason to stop a chat except from the real-time constrains).

 

[Octavian X]

Well, dis, normally I'd post a quick reply, but it's 5:40 in the morning, and I should be getting some sleep.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think there needs to be an upper limit to the number of turns.

The lack of that places too much power in the hands of the chatters, who may all decide that something (like trading medicine) is a minor event, easily spot voted for, when in fact it was quite a argued issue when brought to the forums.

 

[Octavian X]

I would agree with an upper limit, so long as the first few chats would have this limit lifted.

 

[Cyc]

Well I agree with the ceiling of 10 turns. I don't think it should be lifted for the first few chats either. Much discussion and thought is needed for a Nation in its infancy. Those first 20 steps are important ones. If we can't go 10 turns the first chat, fine. Stop and bring it back to the forums. We'll try to go 10 turns the next chat, and so on. I think the more times we stop (averaging 10 turns per chat), the more times the citizens, new and veteran, have to become involved with the game. With detailed writings and screenshots, anyone could enter the game, catch up, and begin discussion. Doesn't matter if the left town for a day trip or a week's business. If you let the DP run 20-30 straight turns, people are going to have to read a book just to catch up. That's IF the DP does write a 20-30 turn detailed write-up and bothers to take those screenshots. As a citizen I would like to read WHY the DP decided to cut across the desert rather than climb the mountain. You are not going to get that kind of reporting on a 20-30 turn chat. (I bring up this example based on the first 30 turns.)

Now I am writing a book. Anyway I feel a slow start will be good for getting people involved and keeping them there.

 

[Cyc]

Quoting Dis:
why dont we just act our chat as if it was not there?

That idea actually has merit. If we were to remove the authority of the attending citizens and put everything on the DP, but the DP could still ask for advice and run informational polls, would this satisfy most of the Anti-turn-chat people?

If attending Leaders and deputies and reps were still allowed to participate in council votes, this would make the spot votes done by elected officials only. We would need to define exactly what in-chat council votes were used for, but at least it might quell the dissent about the attendees having to much power. The main responsibilities would still fall on the DP, who is ultimately responsible for the chat, but major actions that required a council vote would bring the elected officials into account also. Well, then there's the fact that not enough council members show up for chats. We could say if 4 of the 6 Dept.'s were represented then council votes could be taken, that way there is a majority and the absent Dept.'s would share the blame or glory of the votes result.

And on my prior post, I really wouldn't mind if the chat was extended by a maximum of up to 5 turns to place a settler. But I think that would be the only reason for the extension.

 

[Octavian X]

As to the spot council votes, the only thing they can do is override another official's instructions. The spot votes are well-defined in the CoL as 'administrative council votes.' This is well defined in Section C, Point 3, paragraphs B and G.

 

[chiefpaco]

Chat lengths:
Personally, I would rather have a President never go more than 5 turns but write a fantastic report than one who goes 10 every time and writes a little less.

Spot votes:
I guess I was saying in the first post that I don't really like over-riding things so easily. During chats, I nearly always voted against it. For example, the Department of Culture can show up and over-ride a bunch of build queues with little anyone can really do against it. Yet the governor did a lot of work (presumably) in the forums to make the queue. I have no problem with the DoC interfering in the forums - hey, that is what they are there for. Is the need so great to halt a turn chat and change queues? I guess I just saw more of it than I liked during chats. Maybe others don't mind as much as me.

There may be other ways around that than removing council votes.

 

[Cyc]

Speaking of discussion being needed at the begining of the game, does anyone remember the discussions we had over this pic?


Now where do we place the second city?

 

[chiefpaco]

Pink 6! I sunk your battleship!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Cyc
Well I agree with the ceiling of 10 turns. I don't think it should be lifted for the first few chats either. Much discussion and thought is needed for a Nation in its infancy. Those first 20 steps are important ones. If we can't go 10 turns the first chat, fine. Stop and bring it back to the forums. We'll try to go 10 turns the next chat, and so on. I think the more times we stop (averaging 10 turns per chat), the more times the citizens, new and veteran, have to become involved with the game. With detailed writings and screenshots, anyone could enter the game, catch up, and begin discussion. Doesn't matter if the left town for a day trip or a week's business. If you let the DP run 20-30 straight turns, people are going to have to read a book just to catch up. That's IF the DP does write a 20-30 turn detailed write-up and bothers to take those screenshots. As a citizen I would like to read WHY the DP decided to cut across the desert rather than climb the mountain. You are not going to get that kind of reporting on a 20-30 turn chat. (I bring up this example based on the first 30 turns.)

Perfectly said!

And your follow on is correct too, why I still remember the debates about settling Yellow-2....the road to what would eventually become the happiest city in all the land.....