Revised Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative

[donsig]

I would like to offer the following initiative for citizen discussion. We currently have a game play scheduling initiative on the books though a recent judicial decision (and I do use that term loosely here) has rendered it rather useless. The proposed initiative is meant to close the loopholes recently opened by judicial action. Please discuss the proposal which is presented in the form of a proposed poll:

Revised Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative

The Game Play Scheduling Initiative is hereby repealed in favor of this Revised Game Play Scheduling Initiative.

I) Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session. Said announcement must be in a thread dedicated to and used only for such announcements and must include:

• The exact date and exact time (including time zone used) the game play session will start
• The Designated Player for the session
• A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread
• The purpose of the game play session

II) If an announced game play session does not begin within two hours of the announced time then that particular game play session announcement is void and a new announcement must be made per section I of this initiative.

III) Game play must end no later than 6 hours after the announced time for the start of the game play session (as announced in the original section I announcement).

IV) Any DP who

• fails to make an announcement per section I of this initiative; OR
• plays the save before the announced time; OR
• begins playing the save more than two hours after the announced time; OR
• continues playing the save six hours after the announced time;

will lose his or her DP status and priviledge for the remainder of the term as well as the next term.

Should the Revised Game Play Scheduling Initiative be binding:

Yes
No

This is a private poll.
This poll will be open for 7 days.

link to discussion here

 

[Provolution]

I say yes to this one. At least people will know what is up.

 

[fed1943]

Nothing against but one point:
"The purpose of the game play session".
Please, what this means? How can a DP know the purpose of a play session,
if their role is to follow the instructions and Officers are still on time to post
them?
Can you clarify,please?
Best regards,

 

[Joe Harker]

First of all forget it is me saying this and see me as any other demogame player .

III) Game play must end no later than 6 hours after the announced time for the start of the game play session (as announced in the original section I announcement).

Why should this be in place?, yes a time limit should be made on when the save is played, but not when it can finish.

IV) Any DP who

* fails to make an announcement per section I of this initiative; OR
* plays the save before the announced time; OR
* begins playing the save more than two hours after the announced time; OR
* continues playing the save six hours after the announced time;


will lose his or her DP status and priviledge for the remainder of the term as well as the next term.

Surely punishment should depend on the nature of the offence. Plus who decides if someone commited a offence? Plus it bypasses the courts.

II) If an announced game play session does not begin within two hours of the announced time then that particular game play session announcement is void and a new announcement must be made per section I of this initiative.

too small for my liking, maybe 12 hours would be better.

 

[DaveShack]

• The exact date and exact time (including time zone used) the game play session will start

You want that down to picoseconds?

• The Designated Player for the session

Umm, is this ever in doubt?

II) If an announced game play session does not begin within two hours of the announced time then that particular game play session announcement is void and a new announcement must be made per section I of this initiative.

I will oppose anything less than 12 hours.

III) Game play must end no later than 6 hours after the announced time for the start of the game play session (as announced in the original section I announcement).

Completely unnecessary.

IV) Any DP who

• fails to make an announcement per section I of this initiative; OR
• plays the save before the announced time; OR
• begins playing the save more than two hours after the announced time; OR
• continues playing the save six hours after the announced time;

will lose his or her DP status and priviledge for the remainder of the term as well as the next term.

Completely unacceptable. Violates Con. B.2.c, and takes away the traditional right of the people to decide the sentence if found guilty.

 

[Provolution]

We got the two options, continued "peer pressure" aka Mob Rule, or we can get fair and transparent rules everyone can read and relate to.

These kangaroo courts with citizens vote on everything is just silly in my opinion. Maybe the court can find guilty or non-guilty, then the people decide punishment if there is any.

 

[Hyronymus]

I'm afraid my post will be considered nitpicking by some of you but if we want a waterproof system then the wording is very important.

I) Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session. Said announcement must be in a thread dedicated to and used only for such announcements and must include:

• The exact date and exact time (including time zone used) the game play session will start

You assume that a scheduled start equals the true start but that's incorrect. A scheduled start is when the DP intends to start the game play session. If the DP is hindered in some way the scheduled start effectively doesn't change though, only the real start does.
You want a 24 hour announcement in advance of the true start of a game play sessions. That's impossible and dangerous. I foresee complaints similar to the case you brought to the Supreme Court when a DP fails to make the true start time for whatever reason if this wording is accepted. We have to accept that a DP is limited by many real life variables.

• The Designated Player for the session
• A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread

This strikes me as unfitting in this iniative. I rather see this added to the Playing The Save initiative. Besides, Officials are expected, although it's not documented, to post their instructions in the TC announcement topic.

• The purpose of the game play session

I think you mean if it's an online or offline session, the purpose of a game playing session seems pretty straightforward to me.

II) If an announced game play session does not begin within two hours of the announced time then that particular game play session announcement is void and a new announcement must be made per section I of this initiative.

Debateable, what would be the benefit of it? The instructions are known, all that can be gained is a bigger audience if it's an online TC.

III) Game play must end no later than 6 hours after the announced time for the start of the game play session (as announced in the original section I announcement).

Totally unnecessary.

IV) Any DP who

• fails to make an announcement per section I of this initiative; OR
• plays the save before the announced time; OR
• begins playing the save more than two hours after the announced time; OR
• continues playing the save six hours after the announced time;

will lose his or her DP status and priviledge for the remainder of the term as well as the next term.

For someone who stresses the way of justice you make a big oopsie if you are serious about this. Whatever happens to a DP after rule violation is up to the Supreme Court. Each case should be investigated individually and not judged by a rule of thumb.


This amendment doesn't offer a solution for the case we have been dealing with recently. I find that suprising and disappointing because I have the strong feeling that this amendment is a reaction to that case. What should be added, in my opinion, is what a DP is expected to do in case his TC was ajourned by the Supreme Court. I suggest that any amendment to the Game Play Session Scheduling Initiave incorporates such solution, along the lines of:
#) For TC's ajourned by the Supreme Court a new scheduled time must be announced by the active DP after Supreme Court ruling, obeying at least a 24-hours advance notice.

 

[donsig]

Nothing against but one point:
"The purpose of the game play session".
Please, what this means? How can a DP know the purpose of a play session,
if their role is to follow the instructions and Officers are still on time to post
them?
Can you clarify,please?
Best regards,

Yes, I can clarify this and this clause probably should also be clarified within the initiative itself. I'd welcome any suggestions for wording.

The purpose of a game play session could be to play the save in a regular fashion or it could be a special session where only one action is to be taken (like sign a treaty or make a specific trade or whatever). The reason for including this sort of thing in the announcement is to prevent unwarranted stays. If the idea is to open the save and only make a specific trade (so we can then assess other trade possibilities) then we don't have to worry about getting in orders for other things. In other words if there is some controversy brewing over something that has nothing to do with the trade to be completed then there is no reason for a stay of that special session.

The reasoning behind the initiative is NOT to build in lots of delays to playing but rather to give us all a fair chance to give input on game play.

EDIT: I don't have time right now to respond to others but I hope to do so in due course. I will say this though. I will put a revised game play scheduling initiative up for a vote. There are some things I will not change in my proposal. I'm not going to change my proposal to try to include every suggestion nor overcome every objection. I'm going to put up an inititative that I think we need. You will all have your chance to vote it down. I would also remind you all that each and everyone of you is welcome to bring your own version to a vote if you'd like.

 

[Provolution]

We need a similar code for the formating of discussions and placement of proposals, which would avoid skewed polls and the terror of arbitrary "peer pressure".

 

[DaveShack]

I) Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session.
II) If an announced game play session does not begin within two hours of the announced time then that particular game play session announcement is void and a new announcement must be made per section I of this initiative.

The reasoning behind the initiative is NOT to build in lots of delays to playing but rather to give us all a fair chance to give input on game play.

As written, if play starts 2 hours 1 second after scheduled, the 2(+) hour delay is converted to a 26 hour delay. How does this affect the ability of people to give input on game play?

There are some things I will not change in my proposal.

That's the kind of attitude that will guarantee it only gets 1 vote. Well, maybe a few might vote for it. Hopefully the most extreme parts were just bait to see how badly people would react, because it will be a mighty lonely job being DP if some of the things pass. We'll be truly up the creek if nobody is willing to accept the nomination, or if too many get booted by failing to meet the standards.

 

[donsig]

I'm going to try to respond to all points brought up about the proposed initiative. Don't have time to do them all right now but Joe Harker was first so I'll respond to his points first.

Why should this be in place?, yes a time limit should be made on when the save is played, but not when it can finish.

Since the judiciary recently ruled that announcing the date and time does not mean the DP has to announce the exact date and time, it appears that we need an initiative that clearly spells out what is expected so that even DPs and members of the judiciary can understand what is expected. Since there is nothing to prevent someone from announcing they will play at a given time and then actually playing the save several days later I'm putting forward a rule that will prevent that. If you agree in principle that we want the save to be played within a reasonable period of the announced start then we should be able to agree to an end limit. It's difficult to come up with a reasonable finish time since we have to build in some wiggle room at the beginning to allow for DPs who can't start when they had planned to. I'm open to any suggestions as to how to structure the initiative so we can guarantee it's either played as scheduled (within reason) or rescheduled with the proper 24 hour notice.

Surely punishment should depend on the nature of the offence. Plus who decides if someone commited a offence? Plus it bypasses the courts.

Punishment does not rest with the courts it rests with the people so this initiative does not by-pass the judiciary in any way it isn't already by-passed. I agree punishment should match the nature of the offence. But we give the DP the power to schedule and reschedule according to his or her whim. There is no penalty for failing to play an announced session. The penalty only kicks in if the session is not played within an established time frame AND a new announcement is not made. There really is no reason why a DP who schedules his own session should ever be penalized under this initiative.

too small for my liking, maybe 12 hours would be better.

12 hours isounds unreasonable to me. If a DP who scheduled a session couldn't start it within 12 hours something is seriously wrong. I also don't like giving large amounts of leeway on the start of the session because it leaves open a door for polling abuse and controversies. A major reason for knowing in advance (with a resonable amount of precision) when the save will be played is to allow for proper polling. Knowing the window within which a session will start allows citizens and officials the opportunity to get polls up and closed before the session starts without holding off on important polls because they might not be time for them to close. The bigger the window the easier it is for an unscrupolous poller to manipulate a situation.

EDIT: And a reply to DaveShack:

As written, if play starts 2 hours 1 second after scheduled, the 2(+) hour delay is converted to a 26 hour delay. How does this affect the ability of people to give input on game play?

It this a trick question? It gives people 26 more hours to give input. Just a few hours more of input in a certain poll and we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, would we?

Don't try to scare people with your gloom and doom delay theories DaveShack. The DPs schedule their own game play sessions. Unless there is a stay, the DP's control their own destiny here. Great care should be taken by DPs when scheduling their sessions and by anyone placing a stay on play. By knowing the consequences of delaying or placing stays I think we'll get that care.

There are also ways to avoid RL delaying a session. Back in the old days we had a chain of command. Would it not be possible for us to work out a DP back up system within the DP pool? As long as any back-up or alternate DPs are listed in the announcement things could go forward under the initiative if RL prevents the DP from playing within the specified time. I'm trying to craft some rules here that we can all live with and I'm open to new ideas. But having proper advance notice of when the save will be played, along with reasonable start and finish windows is not negotiable in my proposal. After the latest judicial fiasco I'm not inclined to easily give up the idea of having the initiative specify the consequences of ignoring it.

 

[DaveShack]

This is not an attempt to threadjack. In all fairness, I feel like giving some constructive input.

If it were me writing this initiative...

I. A separate thread just for announcements of play sessions seems like just another "ho-hum why bother with so much red tape" kind of thing. Someone who is actually playing the game knows that there are already 2 places to look for information about game sessions, in the DP Pool thread in the government forum, and in the sticky posts in the main forum. I can't imagine how the existing information is insufficient, nor how the benefit of a new tracker thread exceeds the burden placed on the DPs of changing the way they operate to include posting in this extra thread.

However, if someone clearly stated a convincing reason why such a thread is needed, I would be willing to listen to that reason.

II. I would ask the general public how scheduling of offline sessions should be handled. What is really needed? Here are my views:

• Officials need a deadline by which instructions need to be posted
• Citizens need some kind of idea whether they should look at the forums today for new information about the game, or if it won't be available till tomorrow.

Examining the realities of offline schedules (and online schedules for that matter), let us consider the case of a middle-aged DP with family, job, volunteer positions, and a very uneven daily schedule. Such a DP might think there is time to play between say 10PM and 2AM local time. Knowing that long delays like those due to putting a 3 year old back in bed aren't fun to chatgoers, and that there is usually nobody in the chat anyway at such a ghastly hour, the DP decides for an offline session. Then say there is a thunderstorm which knocks out power from 9PM to 12:15. What should the DP do, start playing when power comes back on, or reschedule this session and make the fair Yasutanian people wait another day or two until another opportunity to play comes along. (as you might guess, this is very much a real scenario BTW)

What do the people want to do when this happens? Do they want the DP to knock out those turns a little later than planned, or make them wait for the next opportunity?

III.

It is sometimes the case that a play session ends, and upon examination of the save several citizens notice that there's a little piece of information that is needed before an informed decision about the next play session is possible. Suppose there is nothing interesting that can even be discussed until the information is revealed. Should a mandatory wait apply, or should there be the opportunity to make a judgement call and do the right thing?

The fundamental question to be asked is, do we want a rule which harshly treats the normal consequences of a less than perfect world, or one which allows flexibility?

I'm ready to help with a rule to handle potentially damaging events, if it targets things which should be targeted.

 

[DaveShack]

It this a trick question? It gives people 26 more hours to give input. Just a few hours more of input in a certain poll and we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, would we?

If you're worried about polls, then write something about polls. If you're worried about stays, then write about stays. You should know not to use a nuke when a warrior will do.

As written, it blasts a DP who gets home late from the store and starts 2:15 late, and that simply can't be an acceptable outcome. I've written another quite plausible scenario in my following post. Think about the normal things that happen to people, and don't catch those things in a dragnet that was meant to catch those with poor judgement or with nefarious goals.

 

[Hyronymus]

This is really going into the wrong direction.

Donsig, you have to accept that if you propose something, criticism will be your part. You expect us to live up to the rules of this forum and this demogame, don't look surprised if you get it rubbed in when you yourself propose something that totally bypasses those rules.

Your proposal misses the scope of the case you brought to justice in Term 5. Speaking for myself, and I'm sorry to say this, you are raping this demogame by insisting on rulesets that take away every fun part of the demogame.

Starting a scheduled (= planned) turnchat late will become a crime thanks to this proposal.

 

[Provolution]

The idea with turnchats as I see it, is participation and chain of command. This is why the chat format makes sense. Yet, a chain of command law placing all officials behind in line with the DPs, makes it possible to have someone stand-by to handle an absent DP.

You see the point?

I think violating ones own scheduled turnchat should be related to that of reading polls posted within a certain deadline (not polls posted after delays).
I also think we need to focus more on the formating of discussions and proposals for same polls.

 

[Hyronymus]

You see the point?

No, care to elaborate on it though? I'll take a refreshing shower in the mean time.

 

[Provolution]

We need to instate a chain of command rule. So that if someone does not show up to a turnchat, there is someone to take over as determined by "chain of command".

For the violation of not showing up to ones own turnchat, that should not necessarily lead to a ban from being a DP next term, but the information that a certain DP did not show up, or broke the terms of that turnchat, should be made a compulsory part of the official DP election nomination and poll threads for the two next DP elections. This way, people can decide themselves if they think the violation was bad enough to warrant a reelection or not.

Outright banning a DP for two more terms may be a bit harsh, but it is also harsh to mislead the citizens about the history of a certain candidate.

Citizens have the right to know when it matters.

There should also be a law for how long a discussion lasts. If someone fails to post in that discussion or fails to come with proposals, sorry for them.
There should be some deadlines in place for official discussion threads.

We should also give the authority to officials to add a "hammer" logo to the official threads, so people know the difference of official and citizen initiatives.

 

[Hyronymus]

Now I understand and I tend to disagree. I believe the citizens of Yatusan are themselves resposible for choosing their DP's with care. I don't believe it's the job of the Chieftain.

If the Chieftain is to become responsible for mentioning the violations of DP's that may cause controversy, especially in the case where the Chieftain and DP aren't getting along nicely. Also, if the Chieftain becomes responsible for this, should all violations be mentioned or do we make violations time-barred?

And about who's next in command if a DP doesn't show up: if I'm right that's supposed to be the next DP in line. However, those two people can hardly ever be around at the same time. You make a very valid point when you suggest that a backup is needed, except for when we decide that when a DP doesn't show up the TC is cancelled entirely.

 

[Provolution]

Well, the problem with DP elections is that the format of polling several at once with no information of deeds and misdeeds makes the DP role only a popularity contest, not based on integrity, accountability and delivery at all.

If someone fails to do something, and the court points that out, the consequence would be that old and new citizens are reminded of that breach of conduct where it matters most, election time.

 

[Hyronymus]

Popularity is shaped by ones reputation. If someone isn't popular that may well be because of passed rule violations.