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

[donsig]

Your knowledge is way off. You dont participate in the game anymore. I have not seen you at a single TC and the only evidence of you being in one was the T3DG3 TC. That was the only time I have even remotely heard of you being at a TC. Therefore, do not argue for or against something you do not understand.

And herein lies the whole flipping problem. Unless you are the the CHAT you are not considered to be participating! This is a FORUM based game. A chat was added to make the game more enjoyable for those who like that sort of thing. Ever since the chat was added the trend has been to play the game more and more in the chat and less and less in the forums. If you all want to play a chat based demogame then go do it but let the rest of us have our forum based game.

 

[donsig]

I checked the discussion thread for the Aztec war, and the response was more or less neutral. Some were for it, some were against, some wanted us to wait. If, as you said, the Aztecs placed a city next to our troops and demanded that we leave in the same turn, forcing you to make a decision, you were within your rights to declare war. However, a miscommunication happened in the chatroom that made us believe that you had marched troops there, incurred on their territory intentionally, and declared war when they predictably demanded that the troops leave.

Miscommunication? Did I say I had moved any troops? No, because I didn't move any troops! Is the DP supposed to put in the log everything he doesn't do? No, there was no miscommunication. Previous presidents had pandered to the chat goers to the point where the chat goers were spoiled into thinking they would be in on every little decision that came along. I made it clear from the git go that I wasn't going to do that and this brought on the wrath of the chat goers.

Even there, you would not necessarily have been in the wrong by declaring war, though it would have been best if more discussion and a poll had been conducted before attacking. Because of this, many of the people in the chatroom on that day (more than a year ago now, BTW) called for you to stop the chat. The crisis could have been averted entirely if you had stopped it on the turn following the declaration and allowed for detailed plans to be made.

I had already asked for plans from the military leader who hadn't even bothered to respond to my pms. We were coming off a period where the last game play session had been cancelled due to lack of forum discussion. I was not about to go down that path. Turns must be played in order to generate discussions.

Instead, you signed MA's with two other civs (which hadn't been discussed at all) and played on, conducting the war as you pleased for seven turns. Was this as big of a transgression as we played it up to be? Of course it wasn't, but your actions nonetheless made it seem like you were running away with the game, which infuriated many of the people in the chatroom to the point where we (not knowing the full picture) could not be reasoned with.

If those at the chat had been paying attention before the chat and had participated in the forum discussions perhaps this whole thing never would have happened. You said earlier you looked at the thread and found responose to the war neutral. Compare the posts in the thread to the chat log and see how many at the chat made their views known in that thread. Those at the chat had no right getting infuriated when they had not even participated in the war discussion! And as for being infuriated, I recall feeling that way myself due to things that were said at the chat.

If the citizenry had been able to stop the chat, we would have done so immediately after the declaration, you would have been better able to explain to us what really happened once it was stopped (rather than trying to deal with a lynch mob as happened in reality), and the DG would have gone on without a major disturbance.

As I said earlier we were coming off a dormant period and I felt it was important to get more than one or two turns played. I also did not think it was wise t allow mob rule.

That is the reason that I've voted for DP, the Council, and the Citizenry. The Council can stop the chat through instructions (as worked out very nicely in DG4).

Had I been DP I would not have recognized the legality of these instructions but there's no point arguing that matter here.

The Citizenry could, if there was a wide enough consensus, stop the chat if enough citizens in the chatroom consented. I'm not sure on what mechanism we could use for that...

We never had success agreeing on quoroms and I really think the time we'd have to spend hammering out this mechanism would not be worth it.

 

[Sarevok]

And herein lies the whole flipping problem. Unless you are the the CHAT you are not considered to be participating! This is a FORUM based game. A chat was added to make the game more enjoyable for those who like that sort of thing. Ever since the chat was added the trend has been to play the game more and more in the chat and less and less in the forums. If you all want to play a chat based demogame then go do it but let the rest of us have our forum based game.

Please read my earlier post, and stop trying to provoke me.

It is obvious that we all want a forum-based game. What I dont understand is why you are so increasingly hostile about anything not suggesting absolute power for the DP. The reality of the situation is quite different: There is no truly logical way to have a democracy game on this forum without a TC, as how would the game be played? Alone by the DP who can really just do as they please. We cannot do that, and the TC is both a place of discussion when the game is palyed and a restraint against the DP going too far. That is also the explanation for the chaty being slightly more essential for the game, as that is where ultimately the real action is. Nobody had any decent discussion in the forum except for all of the ridiculous judicial crap. If there is no citizenry to discuss the issue, there cannot be a forum-based game as there is no way to discuss on the forums. Therefore instead of deciding wether this game should be forum-based or chat-based, the first issue must be to consider how many people will be playing in the DG. The more people, the more of a forum-based game it will be.

Going by that judgement, the plan is to spend less time in the books, and more time in the game. I personally believe that the judidicary should only exist, it should not rule. Nor should the DP, who is only to play but not to rule. The true rulers of the game should be the citizenry, and any authoritarian system where 1 figure holds more power than any other I will not stand for, nor will I be around to see them as I would leave.

 

[Sarevok]

Alright, since you put it that way I am done here since I am seeing a scenario of my past in this thread. I will however be watching for any insult thrown at me in this thread. I also dont want any response to any post I made in this thread earlier.

I am recalling this post and what it says. I refuse to be treated like a fool. In the event that the threat against me is carried out, I have only one thing to say: " The pen may be mightier than the sword, buy my sword moves faster than the pen and does not have a second thought. "

 

[donsig]

Please read my earlier post, and stop trying to provoke me.

It is obvious that we all want a forum-based game. What I dont understand is why you are so increasingly hostile about anything not suggesting absolute power for the DP. The reality of the situation is quite different: There is no truly logical way to have a democracy game on this forum without a TC, as how would the game be played? Alone by the DP who can really just do as they please.

The game could be played fine without the chats. It was originally designed to be played that way. The DP would NOT be able to do what he or she pleases as there would still be a game play instruction thread that would have to be follwed. With saved being posted every five turns and a mandatory play log it would be quite easy to check and see that the DP is playing as instructed.

We cannot do that, and the TC is both a place of discussion when the game is palyed and a restraint against the DP going too far. That is also the explanation for the chaty being slightly more essential for the game, as that is where ultimately the real action is. Nobody had any decent discussion in the forum except for all of the ridiculous judicial crap.

Part of the reason there is little discussion now in the forums is due to the very fact that actual decisions are made in the chats more and more. Those who cannot be at the chats find that their voice carries less and less weight. They feel as though their participation is meaningless to the game and they drift away. It's been happening since DG1.
As for the *ridiculous judicial crap* that was a direct result of the crappy rules adopted for DG4 which was a direct result of the chatters being pissed about being shut out of decision making in DG3T3.

If there is no citizenry to discuss the issue, there cannot be a forum-based game as there is no way to discuss on the forums. Therefore instead of deciding wether this game should be forum-based or chat-based, the first issue must be to consider how many people will be playing in the DG. The more people, the more of a forum-based game it will be.

Well, if you all set things up so that the real action is in the chats then the amount of people participating will continue to dwindle down till it gets down to the number of people at the chats. If yu truly want more people invlved then set things up so that the action is available to more people.

Going by that judgement, the plan is to spend less time in the books, and more time in the game. I personally believe that the judidicary should only exist, it should not rule. Nor should the DP, who is only to play but not to rule. The true rulers of the game should be the citizenry, and any authoritarian system where 1 figure holds more power than any other I will not stand for, nor will I be around to see them as I would leave.

Someone has to have authority and only one person can play the save at a time. The whole idea behind the democracy game is to vest the save playing authority in the President while placing reasonable limits on that authority through our constitution. After four demogames we've evolved a pretty good system for defining those reasonable limits, the game play instruction thread being foremost among these. There is no reasonable way to construe the system we have as authoritarian.

 

[Sarevok]

The game could be played fine without the chats. It was originally designed to be played that way. The DP would NOT be able to do what he or she pleases as there would still be a game play instruction thread that would have to be follwed. With saved being posted every five turns and a mandatory play log it would be quite easy to check and see that the DP is playing as instructed.

That could possibly work, but as you said above the TC's are more efficient as there are people in a nearby place while all of this game-playing is being done.

Part of the reason there is little discussion now in the forums is due to the very fact that actual decisions are made in the chats more and more. Those who cannot be at the chats find that their voice carries less and less weight. They feel as though their participation is meaningless to the game and they drift away. It's been happening since DG1.
As for the *ridiculous judicial crap* that was a direct result of the crappy rules adopted for DG4 which was a direct result of the chatters being pissed about being shut out of decision making in DG3T3.

I agree here, the decision must be in the forums rather than not in the forums and everything must be done to make sure that is how it is.

Well, if you all set things up so that the real action is in the chats then the amount of people participating will continue to dwindle down till it gets down to the number of people at the chats. If yu truly want more people invlved then set things up so that the action is available to more people.

Again, I agree here. The point is to encourage discussion in the forum rather than in the TC.

Someone has to have authority and only one person can play the save at a time. The whole idea behind the democracy game is to vest the save playing authority in the President while placing reasonable limits on that authority through our constitution. After four demogames we've evolved a pretty good system for defining those reasonable limits, the game play instruction thread being foremost among these. There is no reasonable way to construe the system we have as authoritarian.

So long as the DP cannot overide a majority will of the people, I will have no problems here.