Revised Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative

[Provolution]

I still think a verdict should be notified for elections. That would be most proper.

 

[Hyronymus]

Who should post such notification then?

 

[Provolution]

The Judiciary should do that as one of their last duties for their term, only quoting the official outcome in the nomination and polling threads.
If it was a mild sentence, it would most likely have no impact.

This would be a service to new players, who got no time to read it all.

 

[Hyronymus]

If the Judiciary announces it I'm more willing to accept your suggestion. The Judiciary should be considered Impartial after all.

 

[Provolution]

Yes, the Chieftain has no business hanging out people. It would be the Judiciary's role to notify relevant information in court.

For example, for certain jobs in real life society, one needs to have a clean legal record. This also counts for getting VISA travel to the US.
Of course, there is the gap between corrupt US presidential pardons to enforcement of standards for officials. I am more for the last one.
At least, people got the right to know if the person they vote for, is a crook.

 

[donsig]

I. A separate thread just for announcements of play sessions ...

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

This is tied into delineating actual start and end windows. In order for that to work we need to know when the DP actually starts and stops playing. So we need:

• the original announcement (the scheduled start)
• the actual time play started
• the time play ended

The best way to do this is with a dedicated thread for the purpose so we can all clearly see what is going on and can rely on the time stamps for an objective of whether or not the initiative is followed.

I realize this is a bit of extra work. I was all well and good with the old initiative until it was trashed by the judiciary.

 

[Joe Harker]

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.

But who decides whether the DP has done anything wrong?

You can't write down a set punishment because we will end up arguing that the accused should give up his/hers responabilities, because they are set in law, but the situation doesn't demand such a strong punishment.

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.

I do see your point on this, but remeber in the previous case the matter was over what happens when a game session is delayed by the judiciary, for which there is no clear law over it.

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.

Again i see your point and agree with it, but it should not be 6 hours. 24 hours would be better.

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.

But if the DP has posted the time (s)he would like to start then all polls should be closed by then.

 

[donsig]

Again, I don't have time to respnd to all comments right now. I will get to them in due time. I'm now up to DaveShack's first set of comments.

You want that down to picoseconds?

No, hour and minute (with am or pm and time zone) will do.

I will oppose anything less than 12 hours.

Then you'll be voting against the initiative because 12 or more is not acceptable to me.

Umm, is this ever in doubt?

Think back to the old days of the CoC. It is quite possible that someday we'll institute a back-up system in the DP pool. Doesn't hurt to include the DP and it's not all that much more work. And since you'll be voting against this anyway...

Completely unnecessary.

An end time is needed to prevent a DP from scheduling a game play session and then playing it several days later. In the case that prmpted this proposal a possible defense that was put forward was that an announcement was made the the save was to be played on July 6 and this announcement was valid for a session played after July 9. We don't need that sort of loophole. Let's close it up. I would have thought that someone who abhors delays as much as you do would see the value of a deadline.

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

This one will have to wait for the judicial review. In the mean time here's article B for you to read:

Article B - Citizens

1. A citizen is any member of the CivFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
   • The Right to Assemble
   • The Right to Vote
   • The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
   • The Right to Free Speech
   • The Right to Free Movement
   • The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
   • The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
   • The Right of Representation
3. These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.

Perhaps you mean to quote a different section of the constitution Mr. Chief Justice?

 

[Joe Harker]

Sorry, press submit reply too early!

12 hours isounds unreasonable to me. If a DP who scheduled a session couldn't start it within 12 hours something is seriously wrong.

Ok, for example, this term as a DP, I will have to play the save offline, on my computer, not the families, which i am on at the moment. My Dad who went freelance is working at home alot, and is using the computer quite a bit as well.

I can't say that i will be able to play the save at this time, because my dad maybe editing songs or something like that, so what i can say is that i will play the save sometime after this time and have it done and posted by this other time.

Therefore yes in a perfect life i would love to play the save at the time i give, but in the Real world, it may not happen. 12 hours gives me plenty of time to pick up the save and instructions and play the save within 24 hours of the time stated gives me time to post the save back in the forums.

Of course hopefully it will be alot quicker than 24 hours but, it gives me the time to take it slowly so i don't miss important instructions, i am not rushing to get the save played.

 

[DaveShack]

An end time is needed to prevent a DP from scheduling a game play session and then playing it several days later. In the case that prmpted this proposal a possible defense that was put forward was that an announcement was made the the save was to be played on July 6 and this announcement was valid for a session played after July 9. We don't need that sort of loophole. Let's close it up. I would have thought that someone who abhors delays as much as you do would see the value of a deadline.

In the modern age we have sessions which last 6 hours because it takes that long to play 10 turns. I'm against punishing someone for being a slow player or for being very careful to follow detailed instructions exactly.

I don't mind a deadline that can't conceivably be hit under normal circumstances. I wouldn't mind a guideline if you weren't trying to make the punishment automatic. There are better ways to close the loophole, like how about we define what a stay is in the first place. I'm not convinced that a judicial stay is even legal right now.

 

[dutchfire]

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).

*Queue Chieftess coming in and talking about the good old days, when TCs lasted days instead of hours


And for the rest of the proposal "No"

 

[dutchfire]

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

I) Define exact; Why would the Designated Player need to be announced at least 24 hours before the start of the session? It may well be needed for someone else to play, and in the current system this is entirely legal as long as the DP pool manager agrees, and it should stay that way; Why a link if the very same thread is the instruction thread.

II) Two hours is rather short isn't it? And how are we going to check if the TC started?

III) Six hours is not extraordinarily long IMO, especially if something goes wrong with someones software or something. I'd find everything up to 12 hours reasonable (considering the session may have started later too) and anything up to 24 hours acceptable if something was posted in the thread (but I'd argue that the DP doesn't have a life)

IV) We don't have a judiciary and jury for nothing

 

[Hyronymus]

Then you'll be voting against the initiative because 12 or more is not acceptable to me.

I wonder what you actually expect from us if you write this, donsig. If you don't expect feedback you shouldn't bother creating discussion topics and put your initiatives up for polling immediatly.

 

[Provolution]

I think a workable compromise could be a 8 hour differential, in order to match the difference from CET to EST time, which is 7 hour differential.

I admit 2 hours is a bit short, yet 12 hours may seem a bit impractical.

Yet, as a DP plays only once a month, I think they should respect that obligation and set aside time for it.

Also, I agree that for off-line sessions like Joe pointed out, we need some flexibility. Yet, we need a timestamp on both sides, which could be four hours before turnchat and then allow someone else to play the turnchat if real life makes that session impossible. We need a CoC system again.

 

[donsig]

I wonder what you actually expect from us if you write this, donsig. If you don't expect feedback you shouldn't bother creating discussion topics and put your initiatives up for polling immediatly.

I welcome feedback and there have been some good points raised here. But the bottom line is this: if I propose an initiative I want to propose one that I will vote for. I will not vote for giving the DP 12 hours to start playing the save so it will not be part of any proposal I make!

Ok, for example, this term as a DP, I will have to play the save offline, on my computer, not the families, which i am on at the moment. My Dad who went freelance is working at home alot, and is using the computer quite a bit as well.

I can't say that i will be able to play the save at this time, because my dad maybe editing songs or something like that, so what i can say is that i will play the save sometime after this time and have it done and posted by this other time.

Therefore yes in a perfect life i would love to play the save at the time i give, but in the Real world, it may not happen. 12 hours gives me plenty of time to pick up the save and instructions and play the save within 24 hours of the time stated gives me time to post the save back in the forums.

Of course hopefully it will be alot quicker than 24 hours but, it gives me the time to take it slowly so i don't miss important instructions, i am not rushing to get the save played.

Perhaps you could talk to dad and get a guarantee of a couple hours of computer time at a given time. Perhaps you could find another computer that you can use. Perhaps you shouldn't be DP if you don't have reasonable access to computer and the Internet. With the situation you describe there's no guarantee you can even play within 24 hours! Perhaps you should be contributing to the game in some other capacity besides DP right now.

The key for me here is that it is important for us as a group to know when the save will be played (within reason).

In the modern age we have sessions which last 6 hours because it takes that long to play 10 turns. I'm against punishing someone for being a slow player or for being very careful to follow detailed instructions exactly.

I don't mind a deadline that can't conceivably be hit under normal circumstances. I wouldn't mind a guideline if you weren't trying to make the punishment automatic. There are better ways to close the loophole, like how about we define what a stay is in the first place. I'm not convinced that a judicial stay is even legal right now.

To anyone who wants to be DP and play more than six hours all I can say is get a life. We should not be expecting any DP to put out that much time for one session. The windows I proposed are negotiable to a point - but they have to be looked at holistically. What do you suggest for these deadlines? Remember that 12 hours to start play after the announced time is not something I'll agree to.

As for automatic punishments, after the latest judicial debacle I'm not inclined to leave them out. Keep in mind that automatic punishments only kick in if the initiative is violated. And the DP's have total control there. They set the schedule. They have a time frame after the time they scheduled to start. If they don't start with-in that time frame all they have to do to aviod punishment is make a new schedule and try again. There is no punishment for failing to play a session as announced. All the DP has to do is reschedule and start the process over again.

The real problen (as you've already pointed out) is that this results in a new 24 delay. First, that is a small price to pay to avoid controversies such as we had last term. Second, I think it would be quite easy for the DP pool to find a way to back things up. If Joe's dad is on the computer during Joe's scheduled time then someone else could step up and take the session. As long as the time frames are followed and the alternate DP's are listed in the original announcement there are no punishments, no delays and no citizens unfairly deprived of a chance to give input. Heck, the DP pool doesn't even have to penalize Joe - they can give him the next slot so he can try again.

I really see no convincing reason to oppose this initiative in principle. There are time frames to work out but in general this is a good idea.

 

[Provolution]

I think the Atlantic time barrier would be a good compromise, from CET to EST at least, that gives us exactly 8 hours to do it.

Donsig ask for 2 hours, the liberals ask for 12 hours, why not 8 hours?

Then no one can complain about timezones.

 

[donsig]

I think the Atlantic time barrier would be a good compromise, from CET to EST at least, that gives us exactly 8 hours to do it.

Donsig ask for 2 hours, the liberals ask for 12 hours, why not 8 hours?

Then no one can complain about timezones.

Eight hours is still too much time to start playing the save.

OK, I'm up to Hyronymus's first post now.

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.

No, I do not confuse scheduled starts with actual starts. That's why section two is included. It give the DP reasonable wiggle room to start the game play session.

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.

Well, I think it fits better here since this proposal has to do with scheduling the playing of the save and announcing the schedule beforehand. The reason for including these is to let everyone know what's going on with the upcoming session in one post.

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

No, that's not what I mean at all. I see no reason whatsoever to treat the scheduling of offline and online sessions differently. It is equally important to know when either type is to be played and for the same reasons. The scheduling initiative was NOT put forward to ensure the chat goers of the world don't miss the start of a chat.

What I did mean by this section was to differentialte between regular play sessions and those special sessions where only one action is to be performed so subsequent actions can be discussed in the forums. The purpose of including this is so everyone will know what is to happen and to avoid unnecessary stays.

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.

This prevents a DP fromannouncing a session and then playing it several days later.

Totally unnecessary.

I disagree. Without an ending deadline there is nothing to stop a DP from announcing a session, starting it within the given time frame and then just leaving his or her computer on with the save open for days and saying the paly is continuing. In other words, without an end deadline the start deadline is too easily ignored.

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.

Um, I don't think any oopsie is my proposal can compare with the recent judicial OOPSIE. What happens to a DP rule violation is NOT up to the judiciary it is up to the people. Having an objective rule in place, where we can validate things by timestamps is a great thing.

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.

The propsal deals with the sort of situation we had perfectly. Joe Harker could not play the save according to his announcement. If this rule had been in place, all he would have had to do was make a new announcement with a new time and off we go. This proposal is good because it does not matter WHY the save couldn't be played - any reason (lack of computer, judicial stay, attack by German longbows, whatever) means the sesssion has to be rescheduled.

 

[Provolution]

Then the compromise would be 4-6 hours, or there is simply one side that wins.

 

[DaveShack]

If this rule had been in place, all he would have had to do was make a new announcement with a new time and off we go.

Yeah, another 24 hours later. What are you going to do if 90% of the people quit because of that extra 24 hours. Will they? Heck if I know, but I'm not interested in trying it to see if they will.

We had already waited 72 hours for something which should not have been an issue in the first place. The people demanded accountability of an official, they got it in the form of the 1st poll in that series, and then others jumped in with completely unnecessary followup actions. The whole rest of the incident could have been avoided if we had just accepted that first result.

 

[Provolution]

That poll came up too early, and that idea is about to be recognized.

We are to avoid such spontaneous bursts by giving a discussion a defined time period to end, and then we poll all suggested proposals in that poll.
Structuring discussions are as important as structuring polls, and way more important than teaching officials a lesson by a show of force. (Especially if moves are ill-conceived and ill-researched.)

This was the real intent, but I never got the chance, as the entire process was hijacked midstream.

At least I posted the discussion at large, where several warlords go free with much less detail in their plans, if they ever post them in time.

Now, that is past, and I see the entire Judiciary is set up as a direct result of this. The constitution is not perfect, that is why we see the Judiciary we have today.