The end of spot votes in the chat?

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I am considering the possiblity of removing the spot vote that occurs in the chat room.

I am also considering the possiblity of removing the chat all together.

My main responsibility to this game is to keep it running the best it can. Unfortunately, I may have waited too long on this particular subject as the activity for this game has dropped considerably in recent weeks.

The main reason for eliminating spot votes/chat is that the game is being decided by a select few rather than by everyone involved. By allowing the chat it excludes certain players from participating in the game. Spot votes multiply this by allowing decisions that were never brought up before to be decided without the people even being aware of them.

 

[eyrei]

I'll second that! But I am not sure your this will be received as well by many of the other players.

 

[Curufinwe]

If we eliminate the chat than we have gone from semi-democracy to dictatorship. Many decisions come up int he middle of the game, so spot votes are important, but perhaps they should be decided by all of the departments involved because they are representatives. The chat also is a joyful time for me quite frequently, for I see how the game is progressing, and some others must agree.

 

[Cyc]

Oh, I agree alright, Curufinwe. Ending the chats, IMO, would be a fatal mistake. But that's just me. Also, I feel the DP has a right to call a vote of the citizens who are able to and exert the effort to attend. The DP may not want to take responsibility for some action in the game, so they reach out to the available citizens for their input.
If you're going to make these significant changes in the game, please also state, as an appendage of these changes that the DP must stop the turn and return to the forum each and every time a decision needs to be made. Otherwise all the effort that we have put into making this a democracy goes straight out the window (to quote one of our own). I have nothing to do this summer but study, so one half turn weeks won't bother me that much. Like Curufinwe says, from the frying pan to the fire. Just my .02!

 

[Shaitan]

I think an arbitrary change of this magnitude could only cause harm to the game. Although a demo game without a turn chat can be a successful and enjoyable endeavor, this demo game without a turn chat and the feedback provided through the turn chat attendees would be a disaster. It deeply ingrained in our psyches, our planning and our thoughts of the game.

If you do determine that it is necessary to remove one or both of these elements I suggest that you do so on a trial basis for one or two weeks then return to the current method. This will give an idea of how well it will be accepted and what the ramifications of autocratic play are in our extremely vocal democracy.

 

[crabapple]

I think that we should atleast remove spot polls but I´am in favor for removing turn chats all togheter

 

[Chieftess]

If we remove turn chats, it takes even less power away from the the people, and the cabinet, who represent the people. If turns were stopped for a dicision, there'd be more chaos. Why? Because, maybe some one felt their input was important (say not rushing a university vs. a barracks), and that was already done. The other thing is the game will move very slowly.

 

[Rain]

I find it difficult to understand the arguement that turn chats/spot votes lead to the games being decided by few people. If we exempt the few situations in which the game might otherwise be stopped to consult the people, spot votes are not much different than cabinet votes. Perhaps some folks who have not been to chats get the impression there are many non-cabinet attendees influencing the vote. If so that is mistaken. I find it difficult to recall a situation in which there would have been a sufficent number of citizens that they were able to over turn a cabinet direction. Sure if there's a close vote split they weild balance of power, but such an occurence is extremely rare in my observation.
On balance the vast majoriity of votes in turn chat are in excess of 66% of the votes cast. Often not all votes are cast because it is evident that clear majority exists.

I am led to believe therefore that much (not all) of the shouting about turns chat events is un-informed commentary. I also do not think that removing them will substantially alter the course of events.


To summrize my impressions:

First in the absence of a turn chat - the game is decided by even fewer people.

Second the arguement that the game is being run by a few citizens who attend the chat is not accurate. The primary attendees of the chat are cabinet members. There are occasionally some additional citizens but i cannot see that they have influenced any decisive outcomes.

Thirdly the brewha in the forums is not the result of citizens disageeing in the chat or being caused by citizen participation. Its essentially a disagreement in the cabinet over procedure and vote recognition however convoluted it has since become.

Fourthly if anything is driving people from the game its the increasing amount of bureaucracy most evident in the most recent rehash of the constitution, however well intended it may be. The game process is being made increasingly complex and is in some senses becoming a game of constitutional debate and government building. This may be the desired goal - certainly it is objective that sustains the interest of the remaining players on balance - and its one of the most active ongoing projects. But such activities are too esoteric to attract the average player and thats why participation is declining in my opinion - not because of spot votes/turn chats.

 

[punkbass2000]

Spot votes are necessary. Without them, then the president makes decisions himself, which would be no better, IMO, or we play one turn at a time.

 

[donsig]

Removing the turn chats would also alter the criteria used for judging presidential candidates. If the President plays alone, even using instructions, alot then depends on the President's Civ 3 playing abilities. Using the turn chats, then the ability to lead both the Civ 3 game and the demo game in the direction the citizens want is important. The President's Civ 3 playing abilities are negated by the turn chat, for better or for worse. It matters not which since this is supposed to be a group effort.

I guess I'm agreeing with those who say the turn chats should stay.

As for spot votes, first of all I grossly mis-understood the new rules governing them. I also did not understand that I could unilateraly end a turn chat session if I felt the need arose due to events in the game. Had I been on the ball the current controversy would not have arisen. You can rest assured that the use of spot votes will be more carefully handled during the rest of my term.

 

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by donsig
You can rest assured that the use of spot votes will be more carefully handled during the rest of my term.

Hear, hear!

I haven't really registered my thoughts on the subject yet, but IMO the problem was simply implementation. Had you never called the vote and just ended the turnchat, I would have supported you completely. I just felt that once the vote had been conducted, it should be followed.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

First, I have contacted some people who use to participate in this game, but do not do so anymore. 95% of them told me they stopped playing becasue they felt they did nothing for the game unless they were in the chat sessions.

Second, if spot votes in the chat were removed, it would not fall to the President to make the decision. I'm thinking it would simply be posted in the forums and then voted on in there, with a time limit it needs to be open, say 15 minutes. And also perhaps that it needs a 2/3 majority to pass. I think that when quick judgements are made, there needs to be a more organized method to the voting. I've seen chat logs where in the middle of the voting people are still asking what they are voting on, even after they've voted!

Third, I know this would be a major change, that is why I am bring it forward when it is just in the thought stage. I haven't made any decisions about it, I'm just gathering information on it right now. And, this has nothing to do with the current issue of the chat vote not being followed except that it might have been considered the 'last straw' when I was thinking that something may need to be done about it.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
Second, if spot votes in the chat were removed, it would not fall to the President to make the decision. I'm thinking it would simply be posted in the forums and then voted on in there, with a time limit it needs to be open, say 15 minutes.

This would still be a spot vote, Duke. Just the venue would be changed from the chat room to the forum. Any vote that will be timely enough to influence a turn in progress is a spot vote.

Or are you suggesting a way to regulate the spot votes to prevent confusion?

 

[eyrei]

Alright, here is an idea I don't think anyone has posted before.

Why don't we keep the turn chats, but removed all spot votes but one; the one to stop playing and return to the forums. Each turn, the president relates what has happened as usual, but puts emphasis on things he/she is not sure were resolved in the forum. The people in attendence then vote on whether to continue with the turns or to stop. If two or more people vote to stop, then the game stops.

 

[chiefpaco]

I'm sorry, Duke, haven't we been through this issue enough times and settled it the best we could? If not, I have a few threads in mind from which I could copy & paste my arguments here. If so, I request this issue be closed and put deep in the Demo closet so that citizens have one less non-gameplay-related thread to read.

 

[Rain]

I think that when quick judgements are made, there needs to be a more organized method to the voting. I've seen chat logs where in the middle of the voting people are still asking what they are voting on, even after they've voted!

Completely agree with this. I think the chat needs to be better controlled in general but certainly the voting process is chaotic at times. There question is often not clealry stated and there seems to be no limit on discussion intruding on the vote.

I think a more rigid control by the chair is what is needed to deal with both aspects.

The idea of a snap forum poll is worth examining i think if only because it will ensure that the question is clear.

 

[donsig]

Eyrei: if the only spot vote we keep is on whether or not to end the turn chat then what happens when we reach a turning point and the majority of those at the chat want to continue? Would the DP take us in the direction he or she wants to go? Would the DP still be able to unilateraly end a turn chat without calling a sopt vote?

Rain: Do we need more control by the chair or better behaviour by those at the chat? There are other rooms where banter can take place. It is possible to have windows open for both #demogame and #civfanatics at the same time. Wouldn't we be much better off if discussion took place in another room with the #demogame room strictly for discussion about things needing immediate attention in the Civ 3 game?

It is difficult enough to play the Civ 3 game, take notes for a summary and keep those in the chat room informed of what is happening. Having to control unruly citizens in the forum just makes the DP's job more difficult.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by donsig
Eyrei: if the only spot vote we keep is on whether or not to end the turn chat then what happens when we reach a turning point and the majority of those at the chat want to continue? Would the DP take us in the direction he or she wants to go? Would the DP still be able to unilateraly end a turn chat without calling a sopt vote?

The DP would state his/her intentions before the vote.

 

[disorganizer]

1) the implementation of stopping the chat if any question arises which has to be decided will not be slower or faster then completely eliminating the chat
2) if the chat is eliminated, we will loose citizens (as to be seen from a poll somewhere down the list, where the aspects of why ppl participate are discovered. i think the poll was posted by eyrei and showed that the reasons are multiple, but for many the chat is important)
3) we are discussing this point the whole time in our constitutional discussions. every time we come to it, most ppl state no to it. i wonder why ppl dont speak up when such issues arise. maybe we will get some ppl and loose some other while cutting the chat. many of the ppl i talked to (we started talking to those citizens from beginning of term2) just misunderstood the constitution (we thought that at least). as the recent misuses of some governmental power in the latest times show, they were right. i think the poblem is that our government has way too much power for decisions not being held by citizenry.

IT IS A SHAME that citizens just leave and dont discuss the issue. I wonder if they will really come back if we change their points, or if they will just find something else.


btw:
DOM, with this request you should join the PPO as this exactly meets our goals.
We just wanted to hold back our discussion-threads till the pi#7 thing is over and heat got down. But as this is open to discussion now i will maybe soon post our discussion threads on these topics.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Shaitan
This would still be a spot vote, Duke. Just the venue would be changed from the chat room to the forum. Any vote that will be timely enough to influence a turn in progress is a spot vote.

Or are you suggesting a way to regulate the spot votes to prevent confusion?

Yes. That is what I am saying. I understand the spot votes are important to the game, but the way they are handled right now does not seem to work very well.

The spot votes would still exist, but just in the forums where it will clear who is voting for what and what discussion is being had about it.