Term VIII Judiciary - The Court of Reason

[DaveShack]

Are citizen inputs acceptable on this question?

Spoiler :

I had a whole analysis typed and ready to submit, which would support looking ahead in this limited circumstance where we know what we will do, and then the analysis started down a path that led to a 0-turn chat. I think the ultimate question is whether we might decide to change our minds on the 1st trade and the lightbulb based on what the 2nd trade reveals. If it makes us overturn a previous decision, then it's effectively the same thing as reloading. Playing and saving the CS trade and lightbulb would ensure the people can't go back on those decisions.

Just my opinion, as a philosopher and citizen.

 

[robboo]

My response to Daveshack

Spoiler :

We can ensure that the trades and lightbulb goes as we had polled...No "reload". We have to be honest with ourselves. Its sorta like knowing someone has a spoiler in your PBEM game...you could read it but what fun would that be. IF we cant be honest with ourselves...then we should retire from this game right now. We discussed the morality of slavery but we would repoll to get an advantage in a trade. I hope you dont think I am tryg to do this to gain an advantage. IF we do this..the first trades and lighbulb MUST stand as polled. And I will not follow any citizens polled orders that contradict those ordersfirst orders IF I am allowed to look deeper into the second trades.

 

[ravensfire]

Advice, suggestions and comments from citizens are always welcome, Daveshack.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[DaveShack]

Advice, suggestions and comments from citizens are always welcome, Daveshack.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Thanks, I came down too hard on you for comments you didn't intend to be official, and wanted to make sure my comments would be seen as unofficial as well.

Now if we could just get people to recognize our comments as just comments and not commands it would be easier for both of us to post.

 

[DaveShack]

To robboo, yes I know we can trust you. We need to soften the whole thing IMO. We're long past the point we can afford to alienate the actual game-playing people in any way, because without people to play we don't have a basis for continuing the democracy part.

 

[ravensfire]

From a brief review of the Constitution, I think you're both on the rigth track.

Interestingly, the "Playing the Save" section went a fairly radical change for this DG. Previous version would have absolutely forbidden what robboo is wanting to do, which is essentially perform an action.

Our constitution, however, it a but more lenient on this matter.

1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.

a. If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.​

2. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 1.a of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.

Clearly, once a course of action has been determined, new option may present themselves to officials which yield further actions. The relevant example here are trades - where an approved action that yields a technology may open new trade options. The Constitution very pointedly allows officials to "obtain information about possible options". The prohibition about playing ahead very specifically includes an exclusion permitting the very action that robboo is requesting.

robboo, I'm going to both reject and accept your request for review. (HUH?!?!).

Specifically for your action, I reject your request for Judicial Review as even a narrow reading (as both you and DaveShack have done) of Article E permits an official to take a specific, citizen-approved in-game action with the intent to discover new options revealed by that option.

I accept your request for judicial review in order to determine the limits of that power. This will be docketed as C4DG1T8JR2, pending confirmation of my above rejection.

Fellow Justices, please review my reasoning on denying robboo's request in part. If both of you determine that his specific request merits review, we will open a JR on the matter. If you feel that my approach is acceptable, please post that.

robboo - please do not check on the future options until all relevant polls have closed and my rejection of the JR for you specific request is denied.

EDIT - Note, once the status of the JR request is confirmed by my fellow Justices, I'll be opening a discussion thread on this JR.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[robboo]

Ravesnfire...I wont do anything in the save other what has been done which was within the roll of SoS to get the trade info.

Honestly...I am so confused after reading that......just tell me after the JR if I can look ahead or not. I dont know if rejection allows it or grants it.

edit..OK i re-reread it...and understand. Still I want very clear permission as to what i can do and not do if I am allowed to make the trade and lightbulb.

 

[ravensfire]

edit..OK i re-reread it...and understand. Still I want very clear permission as to what i can do and not do if I am allowed to make the trade and lightbulb.

Yes - once the polls for both of those action close, you can perform those actions, see the new trade options, close the save and report those actions back to the forums for the next decisions. You need to wait until the polls close so that those actions are confirmed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Whew - now that THAT'S posted, personal views on this.

I think that DS and robboo are on the right track - that once we've determined a course of action, we should be able to, in some situations, "look ahead" to help keep the game moving and give us, the people, the opportunity to help our leaders make better decisions.

I feel that we should limit this to performing only actions that are approved, and only for zero-turn situations. Actions such as making a trade, using a GL for a tech, declaring war to determine who would ally with us should be considered acceptable. Actions such as attacking to see if we'd win, moving units or any other action where no future options would be revealed should not be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

Ravensfire..Thanks for the quick actions getting this going. I am patiently waiting for the polls to be validate at there close.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Robboo: After you make a trade for a new technology, you must wait one turn before aquiring more techs. For example, let's say we trade for Mono, and Alexander also has Theology. You can not trade for Theology the same turn you got Mono, you must play one turn. Theology will be listed as "Can't Trade" without playing a turn, but they may not want to trade with you and you wouldn't know without playing one turn.

Just wanted to warn you. I do think you should be allowed to play one turn to find out this information (so I don't get another 1 turn TC), but I'm not a member of the court.

 

[DaveShack]

Robboo: After you make a trade for a new technology, you must wait one turn before aquiring more techs. For example, let's say we trade for Mono, and Alexander also has Theology. You can not trade for Theology the same turn you got Mono, you must play one turn. Theology will be listed as "Can't Trade" without playing a turn, but they may not want to trade with you and you wouldn't know without playing one turn.

Just wanted to warn you. I do think you should be allowed to play one turn to find out this information (so I don't get another 1 turn TC), but I'm not a member of the court.

Ouch! Forgot entirely that the developers took away the ability to trade new stuff the same turn, to reduce the human advantage of chained trades.

I suggest doing only the trade and lightbulb, then end turn taking no other actions. That way we can see if the next trade is available without contaminating the remainder of the current turn. Alternatively, have the President add robboo to the DP pool, assign him the next play session, and play a real 1-turn session.

 

[robboo]

If I need to play 1 turn...I will be wiling to be added to the DP pool...and play 1 turn offline. I would then do the troop movements and things needed for that one turn. BUT if its legal I would rather just get the info we need by doing the trades and pressing enter and checking the trades possible letting the real DP do it all over again in a correct TC.

Mainly because I would have to wait for the offices to get me the info needed for that one turn. Bear in mind..I am out of town starting Sunday till Wed...it would have to be decided and instructions posted by early Saturday for me to do a "true" one turn TC. I was hoping to get the info post the poll before I leave so that we can have a TC as soon as possible. It sounds like I am pushing things to my schedule..but what I am trying to do is not have my schedule hold up trades or TCs.

 

[robboo]

Anyway for you guys to make a decision? SOON. Your lack of action has caused to have another short TC because there now is no way to see what our people want in time for the TC. I think we need to enact some sort of time limit of JRs.

 

[Eklektikos]

It wouldn't have made any difference this time around since I simply completely failed to notice the CJ's rejection/acceptance post at all, despite having opened this thread several times since it was posted.

My apologies for the delay.

I concur with the Chief Justice's decision to accept the JR with the stated limitations of scope (which is what I understand the "rejection" to constitute - please set me straight if that is incorrect).

 

[Nobody]

*runs in* Dont think iv droped out yet.... *pant pant*.... my computer on frits could... *pant* .... post for a bit...


I concur with the chief justices decision.