Role and duties of the DP

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
Time for a focused discussion, hopefully others will be inspired to actually start more.

The Designated Player is the person responsible for actually playing the save during the turn chat. This is a role seperate from any other, although usually filled by the President. During this discussion, please refer ONLY to the DP, keeping in mind that multiple people are capable of serving as DP for any given session.

What should the role of the DP be?
What should they be able to do?
What should they NOT be able to do?
What information should they be able to rely upon?

In your responses, and subsequent discussions, BE SPECIFIC!!!!! Don't just say "trivial matters" or "significant matters", give examples, especially example near the border. Remember, what you consider significant may not be the same as someone else. By bringing specific, quantifiable examples into the discussion, everyone will benefit.

Please, keep this discussion focused ONLY on the DP, and NOT on the President, or any other leader.

-- Ravensfire
 
I think that after four demogames we have a fairly good idea of what the DP should or should not be doing. But then again, we had two DPs last game who did something they weren't supposed to do.

The DP should not ignore or change legally posted instructions in the game play instruction thread.

The DP should follow instructions that are legally posted in the game play instruction thread even if he or she and everyone else thinks said instructions are bad.

The DP should use his or her discretion to make decisions regarding situations that are not covered by legally posted instructions. This discretion extends to the decision whether to halt or continue play.
 
Donsig, I belive your second one is if "everyone else at the chat thinks the instructions are bad"

If a Forum poll shows the people as a whole disagrees with the instruction, then the DP can't legally follow those instructions
 
The dp should have full control over workers
He/she should be able to call spot votes which could decide things not posted in instructions
 
The role of the DP should be the prez and do what he/she did this demogame.

The should ONLY follow turnchat instructions if any. If not any, the people in the TC should decide what to do and have a quick vote.

They should not disobey instructions..

That's it for now..
 
The DP should

  • Have incredibly thick skin because the public will surely target them just as soon as they fire up the game :eek:
  • Follow legal instructions posted in the instruction thread, as long as the conditions upon which the instructions were based are still valid
  • Be responsible for specific unit movements, including workers. [that is, use unit instructions as guidelines not as absolute step by step movement orders]
  • report on everything that happens at least to the level normally seen in succession games -- too often we are lax about this
  • Seek advice on items which do not have posted instructions, and act according to their best interpretation of the will of the people, taking into account all sources of information (forum, chat) and giving information the correct amount of weight according to how much support each option has
  • Stop play if conditions change measurably such that the conditions assumed by posted instructions are no longer valid

Example for real-world and unexpected changes of conditions which may require the DP to stop:

It's early in the game. Trade posts instructions to buy a tech using half our gold (let's say we have 20 and the tech costs one of our techs plus 10). In the preturn a barb unexpectedly wins against one of our defenders and sacks the town for 8g, and we're running -3gpt at the time.

If the DP continues with the trade, then we will be negative gold next turn and lose an improvement or unit. This can be corrected by changing a slider value, but what if the sliders are posted in percentages instead of +/- gpt.

Or what if a scout for another civ walks out of the fog and they'll give us a better deal on the tech we want to buy. Under recent game rules, the DP is obligated to follow the existing, and now bad, trade decision.
 
Falcon02 said:
Donsig, I belive your second one is if "everyone else at the chat thinks the instructions are bad"

If a Forum poll shows the people as a whole disagrees with the instruction, then the DP can't legally follow those instructions

Not really General. In the scenario you describe (forum poll says one thing, posted instruction shows something different) the DP would still be violating demogame rules by not following the posted instruction. Yes, the leader would also be violating rules by posting an instruction that goes counter to the *Will of the People* as embodied by a forum poll (assuming there is no other forum poll or discussion that backs the leaders posted instruction). This is the exact scenario where it would be useful to have a judiciary that could step in (before the game play session) and make a ruling as to whether the posted instruction was indeed legal or not. In the absence of a real working judiciary this scenario is a prime example of when the DP should stop play and get things straightened out in the forums.

I also agree with your last statement that the DP cannot legally follow those instructions. Your scenario is one where the DP is liable no matter what he or she does (except for stopping play).
 
The will of the People is supposed to be the "law of the land" on the demogame, right?

Well, In my mind why should the DP stop play when the people's will is layed out in front of him on the issue. There just seems to be something idiotic about the DP going.

"Okay sorry folks, no Turnchat tonight because Domestic said to settle there, instead of settling here like THIS forum poll clearly tells us we should do. So we're going to just so I'm neither contradicting the Domestic leader, nor the practically overruling power of the citizenry and avoid a legal investigation into any perceived malpractice on my part."

Granted I added a bit of sarcasm and emphasis that a DP making the announcement wouldn't, but just to emphasize my feelings on the subject.

If the Will of the People is Supreme, why should a instruction post which contradicts that stop the turn chat? It seems like it's punishing the DP and the people for a mistake made by the leader who posted in error.
 
So General, just how many times in four demogames have we had a leader post an instruction that contradicted a forum poll? Has it ever happened? If not then why are we argueing about the possibility?

Yes, the *will of the people* is supposed to be supreme in the demogame. What some of us do not want to admit is the fact that the *will of the people* is not always explicit. Not only that, the *will of the people* can be quite contradictory. It is difficult enough being DP without having to sift through the forums during a game play session to divine the *will of the people*. That's why we try to make the DP's job realistically doable by allowing him or her to assume that an instruction posted by a leader is backed by the *will of the people*. (In other words, we allow the DP to assume the leaders have done their jobs.) We also give the DP discretion to stop play. A wise use of that discretion would be to stop play if a leader posts an instruction that blatantly and obviosly disregards the *will of the people*.
 
DaveShack said:
The DP should

  • Follow legal instructions posted in the instruction thread, as long as the conditions upon which the instructions were based are still valid
    ...
  • Seek advice on items which do not have posted instructions, and act according to their best interpretation of the will of the people, taking into account all sources of information (forum, chat) and giving information the correct amount of weight according to how much support each option has
  • Stop play if conditions change measurably such that the conditions assumed by posted instructions are no longer valid

1)What happens if the conditions upon which the instructions were based become invalid? Stop play? Let the DP disregard the instructions and make his or her own decisions? Force the DP to ask those at the chat what to do?

If the thing is trivial then the instructin shuld be followed. We should do as we planned and live with it. If the thing is not trivial then perhaps the DP should stop play.

2)As I pointed out above, it is tough enough being DP without having to a) search the forums for the *WOTP* and b) trying to keep everyone at the chat happy. The DP has instructions. They should be followed and what happens in the game reported. That's all there should be to the chat.

3) Who makes this measurement?

DaveShack said:
Example for real-world and unexpected changes of conditions which may require the DP to stop:

It's early in the game. Trade posts instructions to buy a tech using half our gold (let's say we have 20 and the tech costs one of our techs plus 10). In the preturn a barb unexpectedly wins against one of our defenders and sacks the town for 8g, and we're running -3gpt at the time.

If the DP continues with the trade, then we will be negative gold next turn and lose an improvement or unit. This can be corrected by changing a slider value, but what if the sliders are posted in percentages instead of +/- gpt.

Or what if a scout for another civ walks out of the fog and they'll give us a better deal on the tech we want to buy. Under recent game rules, the DP is obligated to follow the existing, and now bad, trade decision.

Generally, there are no AI moves before or during the preturn AI units do not move until *enter* is pressed and once *enter* is pressed we are no longer in preturn. The trade leader's instructions you cite would not result in a negative balance. You'll have to come up with something a bit better if you want to convince me that legally posted instructions should be changed during the chat.
 
donsig said:
Generally, there are no AI moves before or during the preturn AI units do not move until *enter* is pressed and once *enter* is pressed we are no longer in preturn. The trade leader's instructions you cite would not result in a negative balance. You'll have to come up with something a bit better if you want to convince me that legally posted instructions should be changed during the chat.

OK, whether it is preturn or turn 1 is immaterial.
current balance = 20, -3gpt, let's assume for simplicity that enter is hit here
barb sacks a town during the inter-turn, lose 8g, current balance 12
trade using 10g, current balance 2
press enter
after -3gpt, balance -1

Oh, and for this discussion, we're not talking about whether the instructions are good quality or not. In fact, I'm aiming this towards bad instructions.
 
Wouldn't it be a solution to give the DP sort of a veto-right over the posted instruction? That would:
  • Make it more attractive to become President
  • Deal easily with bad instructions
  • Give the President the power its title implies
  • Keep a lot of the frustration we saw in DGIV out of the game

At first sight this proposal looks radical, I agree. But a good President (or any other turnplayer) does listen to the citizens, and wants to implement the *will of the people*. Since his assistents (i.e. the ministers...) have the same agenda, this will hardly be reason to confrontations. And if there are confrontations, either the DP, or the official who posted the instruction, will have problems being re-elected, for not following the will of the people.
The DP should therefore always be an elected official. An exception is made for a vice-president, because of the fact that the president is responsible for the vice-president. But the Chain of Command shouldn't give command to deputies if we implement this veto-right, to make sure that voters can show their distrust in elections.
 
DaveShack said:
OK, whether it is preturn or turn 1 is immaterial.
current balance = 20, -3gpt, let's assume for simplicity that enter is hit here
barb sacks a town during the inter-turn, lose 8g, current balance 12
trade using 10g, current balance 2
press enter
after -3gpt, balance -1

Oh, and for this discussion, we're not talking about whether the instructions are good quality or not. In fact, I'm aiming this towards bad instructions.

So we lose an improvement. Serves us right for electing a trade leader that would post such a silly trade instruction. (Why the trade leader wouldn't want the trade done before *enter* is preseed is beyond me.)

Let's forget the specific *what if?* scenarios and just talk about bad instructions in general. We had a few in DG4. Popping the hot. The Sliders. The build queues. The first one turned out to be bad simply because there was a bad thing in the hut. If there had been something good in the hut we'd all have congratulated CivGeneral on being such a daring commander. So we can always tell - and we certainly can't always agree on what is or is not a bad instruction. Then if we take a good hard look at these particular bad instructions then we will see that none of them were game threatening. So we didn't play the perfect Civ III game. So what? The point of the demogame is not be play THE perfect game but to have fun playing a Civ III game together making collective decisions along the way. Let's not worry about micromanaging every little thing in the game. Let the people debate and form their *will*, let the leaders post instrucitons based on that *will* and let the DP play the game based on those instructions.
 
The DP should:
- Follow all legally posted instructions - good, bad, or ugly. If the DP thinks it would be bad to follow the instructions then the DP should stop the chat.
- Give a timely, informative, and complete report of the chat.
- Seek advice from those at the chat when needed, but in no way be bound by that advice or any kind of vote
- Not try to determine if the will of the people is represented within legally posted instructions. It is the Leader that posted the instructions that is responsible for this.
 
Top Bottom