Specifics for chat stoppage: Part 1

[Epimethius]

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it seems like a lot over nothing. The only thing that matters is that people can stop a turnchat, not how many. There is no danger in stopping a turnchat unnecessarily. It just makes things take longer. The danger is in not doing so. So there should be no worries over five people conspiring to stop the chat, even though they aren't a majority. So they annoyed some people. Who cares? There should be worry about having a percentage of active (meaning forum active) citizenry for this that is larger than that in the chat. If only 20% attend, and 25% must consent, that's a problem.

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd.

 

[Black_Hole]

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it seems like a lot over nothing. The only thing that matters is that people can stop a turnchat, not how many. There is no danger in stopping a turnchat unnecessarily. It just makes things take longer. The danger is in not doing so. So there should be no worries over five people conspiring to stop the chat, even though they aren't a majority. So they annoyed some people. Who cares? There should be worry about having a percentage of active (meaning forum active) citizenry for this that is larger than that in the chat. If only 20% attend, and 25% must consent, that's a problem.

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd.

saying other ppl dont count? there has to be a mix, a compromise....im still not sure exactly though...
if ppl dont join the turnchat, that doesnt mean they become de-citizenized during the turnchat....

 

[Cyc]

Its true that I haven't read this topic, but from what I can tell people are talking about fractions of the forum population, which is absurd.

Well, duh...(I've been saying that alot lately). What you're proposing is that a minute fraction of the forum population (you say 5) be allowed to wrestle control of a major part of the game away from the person that the whole forum elected.

Why should 5 people at the forum be able to tell the rest of the Demogame, "Shove it, People! We contol the playing of the game, not the person you elected to do it. Why should we, the Holy Turn Chat goers respect your opinion? We conrol this game."

Ya see? You just don't have the right to trash the person we elected to play the game like that. Now if you want to follow the rules and CC the President, then fine. Do it. If you want to run against that person for the right to play the game, fine. Do it. Those are your rights.

But if you just want to be a laid back Chat Goer, forget about doing the DP's job and let them do it.

 

[Noldodan]

So now that we've got that settled... I'm going to post the poll on the actual percentages after this poll finishes, as a formality. And now that we've narrowed down the percentage of how many people have to be there, I going to run this one past everyone: Is having a simple majority vote if the number of Citizens at the chat is within the percentage okay?

 

[Cyc]

NO. You haven't listened to a thing I've said, have you. This is the kind of thing that keeps me out of the game.

What do you mean "Now that we've got that settled...."?

This majority vote if a number of citizens show up is not what we've been talking about. The percentage is of the total average citizen population. The number of citizens that show up at the chat is a stupid way of looking at it.

 

[Immortal]

NO Noldodan, majority within the turn chat means absolutely nothing. It requires a percentage of the current census.

 

[Epimethius]

Proposed Part 2 Poll:
What kind of the citizenry should be used for the percentage needed to halt a chat?
-Percentage of those active in forum
-Percentage of those active at the turnchat
-Abstain

Or something like that.

Again, the problem as I see it is overreacting. "Shove it, People! We contol the playing of the game, not the person you elected to do it. Why should we, the Holy Turn Chat goers respect your opinion? We conrol this game." That is no where near what halting a turnchat says. Halting a turnchat means that the game stops, temporarily. It does not mean that any action that actually changes the game. It means we'll found Tokyo on Thursday instead of Monday. It does not mean the chatgoers are in charge. It means the public, rather than the chatgoers, actually have another chance to articulate themselves. It lets them say Tokyo is going to be founded in the wrong place. Stopping the chat arbitrarily is annoying, but harmless. The chat will resume.

A far more dangerous problem than too few being needed is too many. What if someone declares war unexpectedly, and the DP doesn't think its necessary to stop? The chatgoers might disagree, but they still might only add up to 5%, which would be lower than the number needed. So the game goes on. The chatgoers and the DP fight a war, which the people have no say in. Now, isn't that worse than delaying turn 6 till tuesday, while the people can get more of a say in the meantime?

 

[Noldodan]

NO. You haven't listened to a thing I've said, have you. This is the kind of thing that keeps me out of the game.

What do you mean "Now that we've got that settled...."?

This majority vote if a number of citizens show up is not what we've been talking about. The percentage is of the total average citizen population. The number of citizens that show up at the chat is a stupid way of looking at it.

I'll answer the second paragraph first: I meant the poll options, i.e 35-50%. And I do think I actually understand what you're saying: That what these percentages should be is what %age of the active citizenry has to vote for stopping the chat. Well, you know what this means: YET ANOTHER POLL!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

When I voted for "active citizenry" I meant those in attendance at the chat. They are the only citizenry active for the occasion, and thus I don't see why anyone else should count.

It is this approach that causes me to be forever against any kind of turn chat power for the attendees.

The active citizenry in this game is the forums NOT the turn chat.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

A far more dangerous problem than too few being needed is too many. What if someone declares war unexpectedly, and the DP doesn't think its necessary to stop?

I agree with your point, but it seems to me the solution doesn't solve the problem. What if the five chat goers decide to agree with DP? We just went to war, and the vast majority of citizens have nothing to say, do, or contribute to it.

I say solve the problem directly. Make a list of events in which the chat must stop by law. It has worked great in previous demogames, and moving away from that is the cause of all this fear of evil DP's.