Should citizens at the chat have the ability to halt the chat?

[Noldodan]

This poll is much like my other one, just to gauge citizen opinion in relation to the role of the citizenry at the chat. So, which is it? Should we give the DP, and the DP only, the power to stop the chat, or should we give citizens, and perhaps the Council (Military Leader, Foreign Affairs Leader, etc.) at the chat this right as well?

NOTE: If the Council and/or the Citizenry could stop the chat, there would have to be a necessary quorum of people at the chat for them to overrule the DP.

EDIT: Discussion link

 

[Immortal]

the DP and the DP only.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I believe that there should be some sort of chat-stopping mechanism in place. What those who argue for Forumgoers rights fail to realize is that a vote by the (possibly minimal) citizens in chat would actually preserve those rights by allowing the forumgoers to have a voice in turns that may otherwise have been played if the DP had full reign.

I have voted DP, the Council, and the Citizenry, but we need to take great care in how we implement it.

 

[Immortal]

What those who argue for Forumgoers rights fail to realize is that a vote by the (possibly minimal) citizens in chat would actually preserve those rights by allowing the forumgoers to have a voice in turns that may otherwise have been played if the DP had full reign.

Don't give me that crap, I elect my DP to make the tough decisions when the situation warrents it. To make the claim that the forumgoers owe chatroomers anything is a silly assumption I do not agree with.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Immortal: the DP is not the same as the president

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

- Meaning: the citizens need a tool to stop the DP from using absolute power. They should be able to stop the chat, if certain conditions are met. As DZ says, determining them is the tough part.

Of course the DP should be able to stop the chat. But that is so logical. The DP plays the turns, if the DP decides to stop, the chat stops (which isn't the same as the DP hands over to the next).

The council is the hardest part. The council already has the power to stop a chat, if it's posted in the instrutions. If the don't post such instructions I think they should be viewed as citizens for the turnchat.

So my vote goed to "DP and the Citizenry", but a close 2nd is "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry". If "DP only" and "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry" are tied, consider my vote to be for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry"

 

[Immortal]

fine, Ill edit my post to say: I elected my DP.

Absolute power corrupts: Unaccepted, there are numerous fail safes in place for a corrupt DP, including impeachment, and moderation. If there is ever a situation where the citizenry (forum citizenry) feels play should have been stopped, then there should be punishment if it is decided upon by the forum citizenry. This concentrates power squarely where it belongs: the forum.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have voted for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry".

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I voted DP only.

I would have thought that maybe by Game 5 we would have learned from our past mistakes, but no. The DP is tasked with playing the game under the guidence of posted orders. Those at turn chat should never be elevated over that responsibility, and to allow an assembled group to do so at their own whim is wrong, blatantly wrong.

 

[Cyc]

Bill_in_PDX is correct again. The President/DP is restricted to playing a 10 turn Turn Chat, by law. Only that person should have the ability to end the Turn Chat prior to turn 10.

 

[DaveShack]

The President/DP is restricted to playing a 10 turn Turn Chat, by law.

To be clear, that was specifically stated in the law in DG4 -- IIRC in DG3 it was not stated in law, and was challenged by at least one person as being an unwritten tradition.

Depending on where we are in the game, up to 10 turns of unguided / misguided play by a DP making up his/her own decisions could do a lot of damage. That could be a huge number of decision points we might fly right by without citizen input. That input is the whole point in playing, isn't it?

 

[Sarevok]

Don't give me that crap, I elect my DP to make the tough decisions when the situation warrents it. To make the claim that the forumgoers owe chatroomers anything is a silly assumption I do not agree with.

Well, most people do not elect a president to become supreme dictator of the TC's. I would elect a president that I believe could do their job the best and be open-minded to the will of the people.

As for the issue, I think the DP should have the power to stop the chat, but the citizens should be able to override the DP saying not to stop it. We know what happens when the people want the TC stopped, but the DP just goes on anyway.

 

[Sarevok]

Immortal: the DP is not the same as the president

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

- Meaning: the citizens need a tool to stop the DP from using absolute power. They should be able to stop the chat, if certain conditions are met. As DZ says, determining them is the tough part.

Of course the DP should be able to stop the chat. But that is so logical. The DP plays the turns, if the DP decides to stop, the chat stops (which isn't the same as the DP hands over to the next).

The council is the hardest part. The council already has the power to stop a chat, if it's posted in the instrutions. If the don't post such instructions I think they should be viewed as citizens for the turnchat.

So my vote goed to "DP and the Citizenry", but a close 2nd is "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry". If "DP only" and "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry" are tied, consider my vote to be for "DP, the Council, and the Citizenry"

Well said Rik, that sums up what I meant right there

 

[Chieftess]

It should be the following:

1 - The DP's discretion.
2 - The people in attendance want the chat stopped.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.

 

[Sarevok]

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.

May I remind you that chat stops are for dire situations, not to be done as a random suggestion, but at a time of crisis and where there is a need for a greater discussion.

 

[Noldodan]

Unless there are any objections, I suggest that this poll run for two more days, then we do an official poll between the two options with the most votes.

 

[Falcon02]

to me Citizenry includes the council, and that's why I voted DP and citizenry

Citizenry + council + DP seems over redudant to me

 

[eyrei]

I very much respect your opinion CT, but I think that giving power to the chat attendees to force a stop allows the chat attendees to override the will of the people expressed properly in the forums, because they can prevent the DP from executing plans by forcing chat stops.

That is very wrong.

The DP is empowered with the will of the people by definition in their election. We should enact laws that protect that expressed will of the people, not tear it down.

I just can't buy this argument. There is absolutely no way that those at the chat can override the will of the people on any matter because all that happens is the decision goes back to the forums. They may be able to delay the will of the people, but that is a wholly different thing. Regardless, the point of this thread is to find out if something like this is an acceptable comprimise. Those of you arguing against it without offering any other solution are doing nothing but delaying the game.

 

[Cyc]

eyrei, I just can't buy nthat arguement, as it just doesn't make sense. You're claiming that one side of this debate is offering a compromise of stopping the chat by the will of the chat-goers. Isn't that what they wanted in the first place?

OK, here's a compromise from the other side. Let's not allow the chat-goers to stop the chat, leaving it in the hands of the DP. There, now one side has matched the other in compromise offers.

 

[eyrei]

eyrei, I just can't buy nthat arguement, as it just doesn't make sense. You're claiming that one side of this debate is offering a compromise of stopping the chat by the will of the chat-goers. Isn't that what they wanted in the first place?

OK, here's a compromise from the other side. Let's not allow the chat-goers to stop the chat, leaving it in the hands of the DP. There, now one side has matched the other in compromise offers.

No, the comprimise is between the idea that those at the chat can affect the DP's decisions during the chat, and the idea that they should have no ability to affect the chat in any way. Regardless, the comprimise was offered from myself, who believes that once the chat starts, the DP should not be influenced except in the form of suggestions by those at the chat. My only goal here is to get this resolved so the game can continue.