should we use a "turn -1"?

[Eklektikos]

Feel like posting a link to the relevant discussion in here, Dis?

 

[disorganizer]

i have to search for it. but as even cyc posted he saw it and (as always) didnt post anything... it must have obviously be seen...

@cyc:
the 1st turnchat will only be hitting return after entering the setup-values...bravo... we will need to stop it immediately after, otherwise all non-chat users are totally excluded from the first mayor decissions, which are exploration and placement of the first city.

if this happens (the chat-persons decide where to place the capitol and where to expand without any forum involvation), im surely out of this game.

as i stated before, doint the proposal is in the rules, as no in game action is taken. so where is the problem?
the 1st president could even decide this without a forum poll, btw.
its like doing the pre-turn offline ;-)

 

[Almightyjosh]

I'm sorry, I may be a little slow...
I've read this whole thread and I still have no idea what a turn -1 is or what the point of doing one is...
What the hell is going on here??

 

[disorganizer]

turn -1 is just a name for the thing detailed in the first post of this thread.

having someone playout the setup (only this! no ingame action) before we go to the first chat and post the save for forum review and decission of the first steps.

 

[disorganizer]

i found 1 discussion thread in a short search. see 1st post for link.
i know there were more that that, also it was talked about at the chat. i wont have time for a detailed search though.
if someone wants to do it, he can do or maybe open a new discussion and repoll this, as i wont

 

[Chieftess]

Why can't we just have a screen shot on day 1 and play the game in say, Sept. 3rd?

I still don't know what dis is getting at. If I'm correct, disorganizer wants to control every move in the game. (including scouting). the first 20 turns of a game are trypically spent building your first mine/road and couple of "scouts" (warriors) followed by a settler. All the DP has to do is post a screenshot of the first settler at 4000BC. I don't see why we would even need a turn -1. Discussion on the settler and worker can be taken to the forum on Sept. 1st. The first turn chat doesn't have to be day one.

 

[disorganizer]

The player will have to announce a schedule on sunday and 24h in advance. Remember the rules, even if you didnt comply to them in term 5
So he also has to playout term -1 (game setup) IN A CHAT(!) which is totally useless.

The sense of the above is only to get the pure game-setup offline. NOTHING MORE.
How often do i have to repeat this?!?

The new DP will not be able to playout the first chat on september the 1st, and he will not be able to post anything for decission before that. This will be a totally sense- and useless chat-session.

 

[Eklektikos]

Well, having followed Disorganizer's link to the discussion of this topic I find this poll to be invalid also, under CoL Section F, 3, B.

from Section F of the CoL:

3. Official polls
A. Quorum level is 1/2 of the census.
B. Poll should proceed as follows:
1. Discussion thread, up for 24 hours minimum (48 hours plus is preferred). Then,
2. Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
3. Poll posted with link from discussion thread.

However if Disorganizer will edit the 1st post of this poll to contain the line "This poll is for informational use only and cannot be used as a mandate for any subsequent action." I will not request its closure.

 

[Almightyjosh]

And dis, while you may say now 'oh, of course it's informational', if it was not pointed out by our esteemed public defender, is there any doubt you would attempt to later use the results of this poll to mandate the setup of the next game???

 

[Chieftess]

dis: I made the turn chat announcements *WELL* in advance.

Didn't you read the Term 5 Turn Chat schedule?

 

[Cyc]

OK - Let's not go OT here.

Dis's proposal basically says that we would come up with the ceation of the new game, which would be the save of the first settler/worker, anytime before Sept. 1st. This would be behind closed doors by a person undecided so far. That way when the new President is elected and shows up Sept 1st for the first chat, they are presented with the save. Now Dis is saying that the new Prez can't play the save because as being newly elected, they haven't posted a chat schedule 24 hours in advance yet.

Dis, Sept. 1st should be called the creation day. Not officially a turn chat as no turns will be taken, as this seems to be the opinion of the vast majority here. The difference between the way you want to do it and the way others want to do it is that with the creation being done by the newly elected Prez in plain view of everyone (in front of Godinex and everyone), all our citizens can take part in it if they so desire. I desire this, as I'm sure many others do.

Coming up with our new world off-line in some smokey back-room is not a democratic way of doing things. We need real-time creation with screenshots of the options chosen. I think we choose to be a Nation united in witnessing our creation.

 

[disorganizer]

Well, i see exactly no difference in it, as citizen input will not be needed.
But the poll was setup to DETERMINE if the majority wants to do this or wheter a turn -1 idea was acceptable.

As i already stated in the judical thread, me as a non-leader can only post binding polls if i clearly state so ;-)
Ah, btw, i dont even have to state anything and comply to anything except the quorum on informational polls. I just noticed the word "should" in the constitution on poll guidelines is realy handy here.

Of course i will edit the first post, but eklek: you never have the right to close a poll. Show me the part of the constitution wich allows you to close ANY poll except your own.
There is none. You can declare a poll which was setup explicitly as binding or setup by a leader as invalid, which makes it a informational poll. But as no rules are there for informational polls, you have no right to do this.
I will request a PI on anyone closing any poll.
This also reveals another flaw in our more and more funny constitution: If i request a pi on a judge, what will happen ;-) ?

 

[disorganizer]

Poll is closed.
Further discussion here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30119