donsig
Low level intermediary
Yes, in my opinion is does. (As long as today isn't Tuesday which would make tomorrow Wednesday,)
Revised Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative
- Thread starter donsig
- Start date
Yes, in my opinion is does. (As long as today isn't Tuesday which would make tomorrow Wednesday,)
Falcon02
General
Yes.
A.) 24 hours (while technically within limits) is not really the best warning of a session. One official may be unable to get internet access for 24 hours and thus never sees the announcement until after the session is scheduled to start. 48 hours I think is a bit more reasonable for an announcement, either as the instruction thread or as a seperate announcement in the DP Pool thread, so officials have an idea what time and what day they need to aim their instructions for and they have plenty of time to see it.
B.) A 24 hour delay is not out of the question... however the delay should be announced before the original scheduled time has commenced.
Hyronymus
Troop leader
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,872
I somehow miss a variable I like to call intention in the punishment reasoning. If my intention always was to play wednesday then my announcement to play tomorrow is very improper indeed. If however my intention was to play on monday but (i.e.) due to internet being down I cannot connect to the internet until wednesday, the announcement has become "invalid" but still not improper in my opinion.
At face value you cannot determin in what category a gameplay session announcement fits though. Maybe you can determin it after the fact. What I want is a solution for announcements that became "invalid" because the DP was hindered, by whatever reason. And although I too appreciate a delay to be announced before a schedules gameplay session begins I realise that there are situations in which a DP simply can't. Not because of bad will but because of circumstances.
Anyhow, we're getting side-tracked here. I'm still against any penalty other then a Judicial Review.
At face value you cannot determin in what category a gameplay session announcement fits though. Maybe you can determin it after the fact. What I want is a solution for announcements that became "invalid" because the DP was hindered, by whatever reason. And although I too appreciate a delay to be announced before a schedules gameplay session begins I realise that there are situations in which a DP simply can't. Not because of bad will but because of circumstances.
Anyhow, we're getting side-tracked here. I'm still against any penalty other then a Judicial Review.
donsig
Low level intermediary
The pnishment as proposed does not depend on intent - it depends on what is actually done. If an announcement made that the save will be played at a given time the punishment only kicks in if the save is not played outside the stated windows and a new announcement was not made. If you announce on Monday that you'll play the save on Wednesday but can't then all you have to do is make a new announcement with the new time. Yes, it'll have to be at least 24 hours after the new announcement. I've suggested that delay can be erased if we used a DP backup system.
I really think we'd be better off seeing if we can agree on these windows and then discussing the punishment.
I really think we'd be better off seeing if we can agree on these windows and then discussing the punishment.
How about this?
If an announcement about the new time comes before (perhaps at least 1 hour before) the originally scheduled time, the announcement doesn't need to be 24 hours in advance of the new time. We only need the type of protection you're looking to add when there's an unknown factor, or if there's a reason it's changing which is tied to citizen input, in which cases the lead time is to allow instructions to change.
If an announcement about the new time comes before (perhaps at least 1 hour before) the originally scheduled time, the announcement doesn't need to be 24 hours in advance of the new time. We only need the type of protection you're looking to add when there's an unknown factor, or if there's a reason it's changing which is tied to citizen input, in which cases the lead time is to allow instructions to change.
donsig
Low level intermediary
That's an interesting option DaveShack. I need to mull it over a bit and see what potential consequences I can dream up. Right away I see that we'd have to specify that the new time must be later than the original time.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I think a 24 extension would be fair, so people know what happens.
Of course, I meant the proposal to apply only to changes to a later time. There is no doubt for me that changes to an earlier time must be stated at least 24 hours in advance of the new time.
Falcon02
General
That's about what I've been thinking, there's only one problem which Hyronymus brought up... what happens when the delay is due to something like lost internet access.
ie. DP has full intentions of playing the save at stated time, but at stated time internet/power goes out and stays out for several hours, causing the DP to be unable to play the save at the schedule time or giving any sort of announcement in the forums about the issue.
There should be a way for a DP to reschedule without a problem in a case like that. Or at least a mechanism for another DP to take over the save, without the risk of potentially having 2 concurrent saves, and an insuing legal argument about which one is more legitimate then the other.
ie. DP has full intentions of playing the save at stated time, but at stated time internet/power goes out and stays out for several hours, causing the DP to be unable to play the save at the schedule time or giving any sort of announcement in the forums about the issue.
There should be a way for a DP to reschedule without a problem in a case like that. Or at least a mechanism for another DP to take over the save, without the risk of potentially having 2 concurrent saves, and an insuing legal argument about which one is more legitimate then the other.
Yes, there should be an alternate mechanism, though it's harder to say what it should be in the case of offline sessions. I'd prefer it doesn't penalize the player who might have had events out of his control. Let the DP manager decide where the original DP shows up in the order after someone else covers the session, based on the actual circumstances.
To make this work, it's crucial that the DP always check the instruction thread and post a "playing now" before starting any moves. If some other DP has picked it up and posted, a double play situation is avoided.
If a DP posts playing and then disappears, then comes back to post the results of the session, there should first be a check if someone else has played. This way, the first to post results is the official one, the other will avoid muddying the waters by posting another.
To make this work, it's crucial that the DP always check the instruction thread and post a "playing now" before starting any moves. If some other DP has picked it up and posted, a double play situation is avoided.
If a DP posts playing and then disappears, then comes back to post the results of the session, there should first be a check if someone else has played. This way, the first to post results is the official one, the other will avoid muddying the waters by posting another.
donsig
Low level intermediary
That doesn't make sense. If the DP posts that he or she is playing then we should assume he or she is playing. The DP could lose Internet connection but play on and post when the connection is restored. There's no need for anyone else to jump on the save.
In the Conquests MTDG I've sometimes save the save and the proper web pages to my flash drive, taken them home, put them on my laptop, played the save, loaded the new save, screenies and play log onto the flash drive and posted them to the forums the next morning when I got to work. That works for my team but is that the sort of thing we want in this game? If not then we need windows within which the save must be played.
Disappears for longer than the amount of time allowed to play the save, however long that ends up being.
Why can't the time is ficed but the DP is not fixed.
Perhaps the official (i don't know who) announced the TC is at friday 2.00 am GMT and in the time from 1.00 am the DP wiil be chosen, then there is no possibility that a failure of computer/system can destroy it.
Is that against the law?
Perhaps the official (i don't know who) announced the TC is at friday 2.00 am GMT and in the time from 1.00 am the DP wiil be chosen, then there is no possibility that a failure of computer/system can destroy it.
Is that against the law?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Lost internet access may well be a lie, so it does not really matter. We need the nation to function above making the DP position a cozy privilege void of consequences and integrity.
Falcon02
General
I understand a DP could simply lie about the reasons they delayed a chat.
However, a DP can legitimately lose internet access (as I did twice, and one lasting a few minutes, during the last session, though it didn't prevent me from completing the session.)
One thing I'm still not clear on....
What motivation would a DP have to schedule a session for one day, not really intending to actually play it at that time?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
You know demogames, they get more and more bizarre by the year, and people let old grudges haunt them.
It could surely be political that someone delays a move. We need a stringent timestamp everyone agrees on and no one deviates from.
If the internet goes down, we may just call it bad luck. I am sure I will not be shown much goodwill, so I am not inclined to give any.
It could surely be political that someone delays a move. We need a stringent timestamp everyone agrees on and no one deviates from.
If the internet goes down, we may just call it bad luck. I am sure I will not be shown much goodwill, so I am not inclined to give any.
I think people are getting a bit paranoid here, this is a game after all, people don't have these sinister motivations for which they are willing to destroy all of the trust citizens have in them, if a move like that is made I'm certain the offender would be removed from office and the DG would continue with only one additional scandal.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I think we should hold off on discussing this until the judicial review concerning the current game play scheduling initiative is concluded. Depending on the results of that review I may decide not to put this revised initiative to a vote. (I don't mean to imply that I have exclusive ownership of this initiative, only that I may not see as much of a need for a revision after the JR.)
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I think Donsigs initiative deserves some attention.
