TurnChat vs Forum Instructions

T

TerminalMan90

Citizen @ Large
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
223
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
TurnChat vs Forum Instructions Difficulties have occurred since the start of the current Demogame in the area of game play instructions:

1) Ministers have been tardy in posting instructions,

2) Ministers have posted instructions with insufficient detail, imprecise wording and lacking sufficient for thought with the result that the DP has been uncertain how to execute his duties.

3) Ministers have been denied the ability to clarify or change posted instruction when attending the turnchat (note, this is a matter of law, but can still be a topic of discussion to determine the will of the people to amend the applicable rules)

4) Some Fanaticans believe that Ministers have become nothing more than poll organizers and recipe followers and have no real power.

What do the Citizens think about these communications problems?

Fellow Fanaticans:

- Is the will of the people being executed correctly and efficiently by your elected officials?

- do you think it would be appropriate to amend our books of law to better facilitate execution of the will of the people?

- if yes to the above, would turn chat spot polls or turn chat instructions/clarifications (by the CoC) be an acceptable avenue to facilitate improved communication to the DP?
 
I am fully 100% for this motive. I myself feel like that my powers in posting instructions have been striped away. Before in previous DGs, leaders were able to add on to there instructions incase something happens during the TC or clarify instructions to the DP if they dont know what to do.
 
As a person who plays this game almost exclusively through the forums, I am strongly against allowing unlimited changes in the turn chat.

To put it bluntly, it is a violation of my rights as a citizen.

Our leaders have more than sufficient time to post their instructions. Indeed, they have up to one hour before the turn chat to post them. As a former President, I whole-heartedly agree with our current President's displeasure at certain leaders.

We as citizens must demand from our leaders that the both lead, and lead in a timely manner. Why should we reward lazy leaders with the ability to change instructions mid-stream, especially without consulting with the People on these decisions. Do we now elect leaders that have never played Civ III before? Do these leaders not understand basic concepts of the game (Hey - let's have an unescorted Settler! Yeah!)? Are these leaders incapable of anticipating some of the random events and actions from other civs that occur?

I look at Trade and Tech, and I see instructions that were posted in a timely manner, cover most situations and give the DP the guidance he needs to play the save. I look at Defense, and I see late instructions that ignore the presence of our settlers, and then wants to cover the mistake by creating new instructions, in the middle of the chat, without consulting with the people through the forums.

I know the type of leader I prefer.

-- Ravensfire
 
I will concur. As a leader, it is my job to make sure that my posts are made in the FORUM. Not the chat room. Things such as demands of tribute are to be settled in the chat room, but I can't suddenly turn around and say "Ya Know What? The Russians are ticking me off. Lets attack them." in the middle of the chat (despite how hard i tried to attack Persia in DG3 when I was not FA head). I would have to go through the discussion, followed by the poll, followed by the Military discussion in ordre for this to happen. As stated, the game must go on!

SaaM, who should be making notes of demands of tribute in his instructions, but feels we dont know enough people yet to do so.
 
But what do we do in the situation where the instructions themselves are not valid, due to a unilateral decision that was not presented to the people in a poll?

The goodie-hut pop decision that plagued our first chat was made valid by our Military Leader after not polling what seemed to be a 70-30 concensus to not pop the hut. Does the DP have no recourse when the will of the people is in question?

Time constraints restrict me from address our laws here, but at this time, I don't think there is any recourse for our DP. I will be requesting a Judicial review on this shortly.
 
I will support the opinions of Rf, Peri, and SaaM. As a deputy, it is my job to fullfill the expectations of this society when for some reason the minister would be unable to do so himself. I consider it an absolute necessity to be able to devote enough energy to give torough instruction based on the necessary research and polls (if needed). If I was to not be able to fullfill my obligations, I would send my resignation and step down from my position (well - I feel as strongly about this as a deputy as I would have as a leader). Officials require the trust of the people, and this can only be gained by delivering what the people expect, demand and require.

Paalikles, FA deputy


Edited some grammar
 
Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
But what do we do in the situation where the instructions themselves are not valid, due to a unilateral decision that was not presented to the people in a poll?

The goodie-hut pop decision that plagued our first chat was made valid by our Military Leader after not polling what seemed to be a 70-30 concensus to not pop the hut. Does the DP have no recourse when the will of the people is in question?

Time constraints restrict me from address our laws here, but at this time, I don't think there is any recourse for our DP. I will be requesting a Judicial review on this shortly.
Click to expand...

For what I can imagine, given the mentioned example, I ll toss out an idea - either a spot vote by both the officials represented in chat (needs to be put into law how many would make such a vote binding however) and a citizen vote. OR the T/C to be halted till necessary requirements are fullfilled. OR the DP chooses to the good of the people what to do

However, all of the above could result in PIs....
Just off the top of my head though, and I dont have complete knowledge of Fanatican law atm

Paalikles, FA deputy
 
Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
But what do we do in the situation where the instructions themselves are not valid, due to a unilateral decision that was not presented to the people in a poll?

The goodie-hut pop decision that plagued our first chat was made valid by our Military Leader after not polling what seemed to be a 70-30 concensus to not pop the hut. Does the DP have no recourse when the will of the people is in question?
Click to expand...

I will also be blunt here. The DP can always stop the game play session if he or she feels an instruction should not be followed. I fought long and hard in term three of DG1 (yes, 1) to ensure the DP had the right to stop play any time. Any issue can be revisited in the forums.

Also, there should be recourse through our judiciary but we have been unable to test any laws so far because our moderators insist on stepping in and halting the judicial process part way through.

Finally, there are three more things that can be done:

1) We can write laws instructing our leaders how to run our country. For example, we could write a law saying each city should have two defending units. Simple things like that, that would change as the game progresses, would help ensure our leaders follow our will.

2) We can remember that any of us can start discussion threads or post polls. We should not be leaving all that work to our leaders. Many of us have fought long and hard to guarantee ordinary citizens these rights.

3) We can stop electing people who do not do their jobs properly.
 
As Chief Justice, I would appreciate an attempt by the Term 1 Judicial members to not post their opinions in this thread about this topic. Especially seeing that this thread was created after the Request for a Judicial Review was posted by CG. Let's try to keep our opinions to ourselves until the appropriate time during the JR procedure. Thank you.

CJ Cyc
 
Many thing's HAVE to be decided during the turnchat. If this game is yto progress smoothly and effciently. Otherwise we'd play one or two turns and then stop to poll something new.

Many things have to be decided on the spot, IE: The Aztecs move a settler over our land, we don't want to force them to get out, at the risk of war, so are defensive minister orders (during the chat) some military units to block the settlers path, and help out expansion efforts.

Now, with what you guys are suggesting, we would have to stop the turnchat and poll this order.

In another example, the turnchat gets to turn 3, where we get an offer from the Iroquois, from which they offer a World Map and 50g for our World Map. This is almost certainly going to be accepted, but still with what you guys are suggesting, the game will have to be stopped and this trade polled.

Now, another example, much like the one above, but might cause a differant mindset entirely. The Iroquois comes to us with an offer of 12gpt, Chivarly, and 123g for Printing Press. Now, Printing Press is a pratically useless tech, it's only purpose being access to democracy, but we are currently researching democracy, and the Iroquois has yet to get banking. This deal will meet almost certain approval, but yet still with what your suggesting, the game must be stopped and the decision polled.

Now, what I'm pointing out is that this could hamper the game, badly and it would be best to decide what a leader CAN and CAN NOT do during a turnchat. The foreign affairs leader shoudl beable to gift the persians with 150g when our currently treasury is 6,000, but he should not beable to declare war on a civ, without it being polled.

Also, another thing that should be brought up, what if department orders over-lap? IE: Trade wants to make a deal for the German silks for our dye's and 3gpt. Now Domestic wants to make science higher and put us into a deficient for 4 turns, which would leave us with alittle less than 5g when we pull out. Now, in this case, both can't be done, or the military department is likely to lose something, but in this case, which department is stronger?
 
Originally posted by Strider
Many things have to be decided on the spot, IE: The Aztecs move a settler over our land, we don't want to force them to get out, at the risk of war, so are defensive minister orders (during the chat) some military units to block the settlers path, and help out expansion efforts.

Now, with what you guys are suggesting, we would have to stop the turnchat and poll this order.
Click to expand...

Strider you are advocating a strictly reactive play style and are ignoring proactive steps that citizens and leaders can take. In the example you cite, the military leader could have posted the following instruction:

Please use military units to block the path of any foreign settlers.

The military leader could even specify which units could be used in which general areas. Yes, some decisions - like the exact moves - will have to be made during the game play session - but that is the DP's job.

As citizens we can also take proactive steps. We could pass a specific *law* to build a *line* similar to the one we had in DG3. such a law could not only specify where the line would be and what units would be used, it could also direct our governors and mayors to to recruit a specified number of units for the line.
 
Originally posted by donsig


Strider you are advocating a strictly reactive play style and are ignoring proactive steps that citizens and leaders can take. In the example you cite, the military leader could have posted the following instruction:

Please use military units to block the path of any foreign settlers.

The military leader could even specify which units could be used in which general areas. Yes, some decisions - like the exact moves - will have to be made during the game play session - but that is the DP's job.

As citizens we can also take proactive steps. We could pass a specific *law* to build a *line* similar to the one we had in DG3. such a law could not only specify where the line would be and what units would be used, it could also direct our governors and mayors to to recruit a specified number of units for the line.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the military leader is suppose to give an order to block settlers every turnchat, even is there if no settler? It can not be made into a law, as blocking a neighbor from expanding could cause them to declare war on us, for they can expand further.
 
Alternatively, a leader can give instructions that gives some leeway to the DP. Using the above example: Instructions: Maintain defensive forces in cities. 5 Horsemen and 4 Swordsmen are at DP's discretion.

The DP can use the forces available to do anything needed.

Alternatively, the Defense Minister could request that, in the event of a foreign incursion that does not leave in one turn, or is of a significant military presence, the chat be halted.

I have no problem with the DP asking for the advice of those at the chat - the job of the DP is to play the save, executing all legal instructions and using their discretion for circumstances not covered by said instructions. I have a problem with leaders feeling they can create legal instructions in the middle of a chat where there is a significant minority of citizens present.

As a citizen, I feel that my rights are trod upon by the demands that leaders can create legal, binding instructions in the middle of a chat.

I do strongly support the ability of the DP to seek advice from those present at the chat, then make their decision based upon the information available, even if that decision goes contrary to the advice given.

-- Ravensfire
 
Originally posted by Strider

So are you saying that the military leader is suppose to give an order to block settlers every turnchat, even is there if no settler? It can not be made into a law, as blocking a neighbor from expanding could cause them to declare war on us, for they can expand further.
Click to expand...

A little common sense is required. Giving instructions to block settlers now or make laws about that now makes no sense. We just met our first neighbor. But there are times when it is quite clear that the possibility of foreign bands of settlers wandering over our lands is real. And it matters not whether those lands are within our borders or not. Term 3 of DG3 is a fine historical example of this. Not only did we have Aztec settlers in the east we had Persians and Babylonians landing in the west. My point is we have all played Civ III (and demogames) long enough to get a good feel as to when we need to block settlers. We can plan for this type of situation.

5 Horsemen and 4 Swordsmen are at DP's discretion until 100 AD for the purpose of blocking foreign settlers in the province of {insert province name here].
 
Originally posted by donsig



Also, there should be recourse through our judiciary but we have been unable to test any laws so far because our moderators insist on stepping in and halting the judicial process part way through.
Click to expand...

Moderator Action: That will be enough, donsig. Next time you even broach that topic you will get a 3 day vacation.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Originally posted by Strider
Also, another thing that should be brought up, what if department orders over-lap? IE: Trade wants to make a deal for the German silks for our dye's and 3gpt. Now Domestic wants to make science higher and put us into a deficient for 4 turns, which would leave us with alittle less than 5g when we pull out. Now, in this case, both can't be done, or the military department is likely to lose something, but in this case, which department is stronger?
Click to expand...

To be completely accurate, there are illegal instructions in that example - the slider is in the perview of the Senate now. :)

However, your question is a good one. It is also answered in the ruleset - if there are conflicting orders, precedence is given according to the Chain of Command.

-- Ravensfire
 
Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
But what do we do in the situation where the instructions themselves are not valid, due to a unilateral decision that was not presented to the people in a poll?

The goodie-hut pop decision that plagued our first chat was made valid by our Military Leader after not polling what seemed to be a 70-30 concensus to not pop the hut. Does the DP have no recourse when the will of the people is in question?

Time constraints restrict me from address our laws here, but at this time, I don't think there is any recourse for our DP. I will be requesting a Judicial review on this shortly.
Click to expand...

DZ, there are a couple of things that can happen as a result of the scenario above.

First, the DP can carry out the instructions in the TCIT. It is presumed that such instructions are legal, thus the DP is absolved of any liability resulting from following those instructions. Any Citizen Complaint (CC) should be filed against the leader posting the instructions. The DP can also ignore the instruction, claiming that the instructions are not valid. At that point, the burden of proof is upon the DP to demonstrate that the instructions did violate some law, and thus are not valid.

The laws were crafted to allow the DP to follow any legal instruction (posted in the TCIT one hour prior to chat) without worrying about the validity of the instruction. That responsibility lies with the leader posting the instruction, and upon the People who can review the instruction.

The preferred recourse is that a CC is filed against the leader regarding the instruction in question. The Judiciary has the ability to halt the chat unilaterally if the violation is serious enough to warrant such an action. Through the course of the CC process, the Judiciary may find that a specific action will aleviate the harm. An example might be that the leader is required to post more polls, or polls with clear instructions. Either of those actions will help.

The core of the CC process I developed is that if there is a specific action that will aleviate any harm done, if all parties accept it, that action will be ordered and nothing else happens. I am as lax as anyone, but a citizen could have very simply filed a CC against CG, requesting a specific action - requiring CG to be more active in determining the will of the people through discussion and polls, and post instructions no later than 12 hours before the chat starts. Problem solved.

-- Ravensfire
 
The following are examples of TC instructions I gave whilst ML. Since it is not appropriate for me to post my opinions at the moment I invite people to draw their own conclusions about whether it is practical to allow the DP to use his discretion.


Military Instructions
Do not enter the territory of any other nation.

If either the Greeks or the Aztecs declare war against us, the DP may use all means necessary short of nuclear weapons.


Military Instructions
The poll has now closed. The result favoured a defensive war with the Americans.
Therefore there is to be no invasion of American Territory.
If Fanatican territory is attacked then the DP has authority to foil this attack using all assets.
The wall along our northern border is to be maintained.
There are to be no incursions into Greek territory.
Our navy may be used defensively only.


Military Instructions

The DP is authorised to use all means necessary to bring Japan to the table. To this end 20 tanks are to be sent to the Japan TofO.



Military Instructions
The DP may use all assets as he sees fit for the duration of this current war
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bvanevery
SMACX AI Growth mod
Replies
5
Views
2K
Blake00
Blake00
Recursive
[Vote] (6-00) VP Congress Session #6 Opens (Instructions Within)
Replies
1
Views
832
Recursive
Recursive
The_J
Humankind now available on consoles
Replies
0
Views
750
The_J
The_J
Naokaukodem
The Community of "Building" games VS. "Strategy" games
Replies
10
Views
2K
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
S
[Vote] (5-00) Welcome to Congress Session #5 (Instructions within)
Replies
7
Views
2K
tsmith7163
T
Top Bottom