Turn chat instructions that go against the will of the people

[Chieftess]

This is the voice of a concerned citizen. This is more of a hypothetical situation, but also one that could, if it did happen, stall out the demogame. It seems that our rules forbid changing instructions, especially 1 hour before chat time.

Suppose this happened:

A leader posts an instruction (or multiple ones) that are against the will of the people. Now, these may be by accident, or on purpose, but what would happen? It seems that more than likely, the chat would have to be stopped. But then, for what? 4 days of discussion on nothing? I'm pretty sure there'd be some annoyed citizens who want to see the game move on.

I propose this:

If a turnchat instruction (or instructions) are contrary to any discussions and polls in the forum, then the forum discussions and forum polls over-ride the instruction. Polls always over-ride discussions.

Even though I'm for spot-votes, I think this is what it was origanally intended for. This is a good compremise IMHO. The polls and discussions still exist in the forums, and it's something that the DP can fall back on. I'm not sure if this is the best way to word it (but it's probably not. I do much better in plain English than legalese. ).


An example would be this:

At some point in the future Trade has 3 possible trades for a preturn trade deal. It's the only thing that's been discussed in the past 4 days. Alls quiet on the FA and domestic front let's say.

Give oil for 53gpt.
Give Replacable Parts for Communism and 14gpt.
Give Spice, Wines, Oil for 120gpt.

Suppose the people wanted the last trade in a discussion, and the poll showed that to be a good trade as well. But, the Trade Advisor said, "Give oil for 53gpt".

Would the turnchat just stop only to take it to the forums? What are we going to do there besides possibly CC the trade advisor? There's nothing else to discuss. The game is just going to stall out and become a very quiet term.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am to conserned with this game. I remembered when the Demogame went on as smooth as possible with Spot Votes, On chat change of instructions, and no deadlines on posting instructions.

With the new rule set, the game will crawl to a stall. As Chieftess pointed out here, this would cause our advisors to become quiet due to fear of a CC. IMO, the Demogame lately has started to become "Lets sue the pants off of the other person" kind of game that is normal in corporate America.

 

[Cyc]

Why are we discussing the Ruleset again, CT? Why can't we just play the game? Why are you always brining up discussion about the law? Can't you see that you are driving people away from the game? Can't you see how bad this is for the Game? Can't we just get on with our lives instead of having to read about your rules?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think that actually the turns could move forward if it is a executive branch member who screwed up.

First, the instructions posted would be illegal. Code of Laws, Section I defines a legal instruction. It is not just a time limit, but also an instruction within the confines of that department/position. The Code of Laws, Section B defines pretty clearly that the office holder must formulate instructions based on polls, feedback, etc...

Therefore, in my view, the President could say the instruction is invalid, and in accordance with Code of Laws, Section B.1, impose his or her own plans because there are no legal instructions posted.

There are wording issues there, and a Judicial Review would be better, but, if I were president (like that would ever happen ) I would choose to go forward, and contest any CC's filed against me. I think the law is pretty clear.

As for a Governor's instructions, there is no such luck, as the Governor only has to "organize discussion" on build queues, and that is not near the same standard as the Exec branch folks are held too.

For a Governor, the Pres would have to ignore the instruction and try to prove "will of the people" later. A difficult task in most cases.

 

[Cyc]

All of this bickering is frankly making me disgusted. If we cannot even agree on who controls what build queues then we have far bigger problems, and far bigger egos, than the simple matter of where to draw pretty lines on a map.

Get into the game people.

EDIT to be nicer. All I am asking is that we work to find a way to discuss something simple in the game without everything turning into a legal debate.


__________________

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Hmmm, that seems to be a direct quote of me Cyc, if I recall correctly. Is there some point you are trying to make?

 

[donsig]

If a leader posts an instruction that is against the will of the people then:

a) the DP can ignore it an risk being CCed for not following a legally posted instruction

b) the DP can follow it and the leader can be CCed for not following the will of the poeple

c) the chat can be stopped and new decisions made in the forums

d) someone can point out the problem before the chat starts in the hopes of gettng the instruction corrected

Don't we already have enough to bicker about with these hypothetical issues?

 

[ravensfire]

@donsig,

Exactly. There was a discussion similar to this when we were talking about the CoL I (Legal Instructions). At some point, someone (may have been me - can't remember) suggested having the VP review the instructions for WotP stuff. Quite correctly it was shouted down as essentially impossible.

Instead, the DP gets the option donsig outlined above. Nice, simple and everyone knows who the responsible party is, based on the choice.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

What's WotP?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Chieftess
What's WotP?

Will of the People

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Chieftess
What's WotP?

Will of the People

FYI, FWIW, I abbreviate constantly - sorry for the confusion.



-- Ravensfire

Edit: Blast! I was beaten!