TurnChat vs Forum Instructions

Originally posted by Peri
Since it is not appropriate for me to post my opinions at the moment...

The constitutional right of citizens to participate in discussions is guaranteed by our constitution. Any law or standard that proscribes that right conflicts with the constitution and should therefore be struck down. I would ask for a juidicial review on the matter but I have lost all faith in that process since our moderators continue to step in and quelch our duly established judicial process.
 
Donsig, it wouldn't do any good to get banned. You're breaking the same forum rule that I broke and was banned for several months ago. I feel that you should cease and desist to avoid being banned, which won't help your situation at all.

EDIT: Looks like my statement was a little late.
 
Originally posted by donsig


Ban me then. It will not change my mind on the matter and I WILL continue to speak my mind.

Moderator Action: Alright, 3 days then. Enjoy. You need to learn to give things a rest, particularly when you are the only one still concerned about them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Originally posted by Peri
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.



As long as it is a thorough instruction, I d say the DP is justified to go ahead - but I would rather see him/her seek help from the #turnchat participants - or at least keep them informed, on such situations as the one Peri describes here

my 2 fanaticans worth

Paalikles, FA deputy
 
To be very precise about the restriction on the Judiciary, the law reads
M. Judicial Review
1. Judicial Review of an Existing Law
b. Public Discussion
4. Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions.

As this is not the Judicial Review thread for this, it is distressing to see prior restraint of comments being exercised.

-- Ravensfire
 
Well, ravensfire, when you are Chief Justice, you can allow your associate Justices to post their opinions on current Judicial Reviews all over the forums. Especially Judicial Reviews where you go after the person that initiated the JR by saying they never played Civ 3 before and slamming their playing style.

Part of Peri's job as Associate Justice is to adhere to procedure. If we Justices are going to go around posting our opinions on current JR topics "because we feel like it, why the hell shpould we have JR's? We could eliminate the whole process by just one of us saying "No, you're wrong, in a thread somewhere.

See what I mean about being attacked? ravensfire is still bitter about losing, therefore he immediately and directly goes after the things that I post in regards to the Judiciary. Grow up ravensfire.
 
Originally posted by Bootstoots
Do you suppose that you could post the Judicial Review thread soon, Cyc?

I recall reading from the Judicary that Cyc is out of town and will get to it eventualy
 
Originally posted by Cyc
Well, ravensfire, when you are Chief Justice, you can allow your associate Justices to post their opinions on current Judicial Reviews all over the forums. Especially Judicial Reviews where you go after the person that initiated the JR by saying they never played Civ 3 before and slamming their playing style.

Part of Peri's job as Associate Justice is to adhere to procedure. If we Justices are going to go around posting our opinions on current JR topics "because we feel like it, why the hell shpould we have JR's? We could eliminate the whole process by just one of us saying "No, you're wrong, in a thread somewhere.

See what I mean about being attacked? ravensfire is still bitter about losing, therefore he immediately and directly goes after the things that I post in regards to the Judiciary. Grow up ravensfire.

Wow - didn't expect that.

Cyc, it seems everytime you get involved in a debate, you quickly resort to personal attacks and insinuations. It's almost comical at this point. I am curious though, where did I state that someone hadn't played Civ 3 before?

It is quite ironic, of course, to see you quoting procedure when you have had difficulty in following it this term.

Finally, if you can't remember, far from being bitter about losing - I don't really care. It was a good election, one that I mostly enjoyed. There were some actions by some people that irked me a bit, and have altered my opinion of various people. I did, however, have the integrity to evaluate the situation and carry out the action I felt necessary. If I recall, you then refused to carry out your duties at first, then tried to imply I was doing some backhanded attack by making you post the opinion.

Cyc - do what you want, think what you want. You've attacked me verbally over and over, both directly and indirectly. You've more than demostrated where this apparent grudge is. I don't really care. Big surprise - I don't really care for you, or the attitude you carry around. The change I've seen in you from the previous DG's is rather dramatic, just wish I knew where it came from.

-- Ravensfire
 
After all is said and done, more is said than done.

Yeah, I had to, sorry, ok I'm shutting up now
 
In my opinion, a good leader is an elected or appointed official that initiates discussions, conducts polls, and takes a proactive role in determining the will of the people and then provides clear instructions to the DP in a timely manner prior to each turn chat.

Granted there may be other defining characteristics of a good leader, but I believe that definition covers the essentials. Now, common sense should allow us to concede the notion that even the best of good leaders cannot anticipate everything that may happen in a turn chat. If they could, they probably would have stopped playing Civ3 long before now out of sheer boredom.

Conversely, a bad leader is an elected or appointed official that either does not initiate discussions or polls in an attempt to determine the will of the people, or simply ignores the majority opinion in favor of his or her own. Whether or not a bad leader posts instructions on time doesn't really matter since they may or may not reflect the will of the people.

Clearly, there should be some recourse for the citizens against those bad leaders. Those leaders are betraying the trust placed on them by the nation and should be removed from office (provided there is another individual willing to step in and do the job properly). Additionally, these leaders should clearly not be allowed to instruct the DP during the turn chat under any circumstances. Any instructions from them during the turn chat should be considered advice at best, and not necessarily good advice at that.

However, should a good leader be allowed to instruct the DP during the turn chat? If the leader is indeed a "good" leader (ie. one that has proactively worked to keep his or her finger on the pulse of the citizenry), then he or she should have a good idea of what to do in that situation. Of course, he or she could be taking a gamble if the situation is one that has not been discussed or polled. Failing to represent the will of the people should land a good leader in as much hot water as it would a bad leader.

In short, I would allow a leader to provide mid-chat instructions, but those instructions should be subject to a review after the turn chat of some kind - perhaps something similar to a refusal poll where a citizen can contest a mid-chat instruction and if a majority agrees, then that leader is subject to remedial action.
 
This is a great discussion topic, in fact topics. My view:

1) I agree with ravensfire's view of turn chats and forums. I am not in favor of creating laws that give authority in turn chat to override the forum instructions or polls approved by the people.

The leader should be proactive in posting instructions, and if during the turn chat they realize they wish they had gone a different way, they should request that the DP stop the chat, or continue forward with what was posted. Being a leader is not an easy job.

2) However, in the case where no such poll exists and routine issues come up (i.e. something that generally would not be a critical issue), and a department head is present, I would give authority for that leader to give guidence to the DP, and would ask the DP to listen to the guidance. However, this is always at the DP's descretion.
 
I beleve that we should shorten the deadline length to an half an hour to prevent any forgetfullness.
 
Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
No. The deadline, if anything, should be increased to an hour and a half or something. The leaders are responsible to have the instructions in as soon as possible, not at the last second.

You just say that because we ve got the easy department at the moment :p

Actually, shortening the time would not help much IMHO. All leaders should be able to open the sav and look at the game to evaluate and analyze, poll and discuss if needed.
I am not sure if extending the time to 1+1/2 hr would be necessary though, as there might be some polls and such that may give results just in time for T/C, but 1 hour should be minimum

2 gold worth, as we do not have currency yet

Paalikles, FA deputy moron
(the last bit will be understandable to anyone participating in the 18th Jan T/C ;) )
 
Thank you 40J for getting this discussion back on track. I never intended this to be a 'Judicial Review' discussion because there are ample threads on that.

I apologise I wasn't able to post until now to get things back on track myself. My intention was NOT to hear the opinions of all the current leaders or the people who wrote the three rule books. Granted they are citizens too, but we hear their opinions and play their game all the time. (Let's not get side tracked on that comment either, everone is intitled to their own opinion)

It appears that at least the people responded to this discussion question, that the current system is pretty much what is wanted for leadership and control of DG game play.

I agree that leaders should do their planning and research with the current save. It is their responsibility to make clear and flexible instructions in the forum, as illustrated by Peri. I understand and agree that lazyness should not be tollerated and that poor planning, ill considered instructions and lack of citizen polling are a detriment to the DG process.

On the other hand, it seems to me that it is difficult to anticipate all events in advance. I have no problem with ending a TC prematurely. I fully support our President in all the actions he has taken to this point.

The reason I started this thread was that I could see that the game is getting very rule bound which sometimes ties that hands of leaders and keeps them from doing what is good for the whole country. It concerns me that Donsig wants to put MORE legislation into place; to proscribe more unbreakable rules. The rule books are already stifling the game.

And the bickering over the rules are surely driving our lurking citizens from the game in droves. I am not nieve enough to suggest we dispense with our current rules; anarchy would result. It is just that some of us are taking the rules so seriously that we are unable to have fun at this game.

Yes, Virginia, this really is a game. Or at least that is what it started out as.
 
The people who seek office (and those who accept it when offered) need to remember that they are not the rulers of the game. Our task is to show the people some paths they might follow, listen to their input, and communicate their wishes to the DP.

It troubles me to see instructions like this one, from today's (late) military instructions.
The path is to be determaned by the Military Leader and the DP should ask which direction to go when the warrior hits the predetermaned spots.
This is asking for a level of control equivalent to what one would expect during a single player game. There have been other times when a particular route was specified, which does not give the DP any flexibility to deal with current conditions.

Some instructions need to be very specific, like what tech to research next, and slider values. Other things like MM instructions, order of worker tasks, and travel routes should be general. For example, when I communicate the people's desire to settle in a location, I don't specify how the settlers are to move, leaving it up to the DP's discretion of how to deal with current events. As an example of how too much detail can be bad, what if a barb comes along, and the IA instructions say follow this path with the settler while the MA instructions say attack barbs on sight. Worst case, the escort dies and the settlers walk to their doom. Leave that level of detail to the DP.

Trying to change things during the chat is typically the result of a failure to plan properly ahead of time. It makes me think of a quote I once saw on a coffee mug
Poor planning on your part does not represent an emergency on my part
 
DaveShack:

With respect to your example instruction from our current Military Leader...

I too would be troubled by witnessing an instruction such as that. In fact, I would consider that an illegal instruction, and if I were the designated player, I would dismiss it as such and disregard any further instructions from that official during the chat.

<><><><><>

I remember a time when we didn't worry so much about things such as this, probably because we were still working our way through the intricacies of playing a demogame. Maybe we've gotten far too experienced at these games for our own good.

I remember when we didn't take everything so seriously in here. If an official failed to post instructions, the DP would attempt to scan through the subforums to divine what those instructions might have been. This would take time, delaying the play and annoying the spectators at the turn chat, but the game would go on, within reason.

I remember when Judicial Reviews (or Public Investigations as they were called back then) were essentially reserved for gross violations of the law (ie. a player who played the save, a leader that blatantly defied the will of the citizens, a DP that totally ignored the instructions of a leader, etc...). Back then, I imagine that we spent 90% of our time debating in-game issues and perhaps 10% of our time debating the rules and who violated them.

Today, it seems to be the exact opposite, and what is worse, it seems that some of us are thriving on this - revelling in it even. We seem to enjoy this bickering so much, that it has taken on a life of its own. The actual Civ3 game has taken a distant back seat to the constant quarelling over rules and conduct in the forums. It has become more important to win a legal dispute or to illustrate some shortcoming in the current ruleset than to analyze the build queue of a city or to debate the best direction in which we should expand our empire.

Perhaps this is what some of us are looking for in a demogame. I can say that it is certainly not what I am looking for, which is why this is likely to be my final post for some time. I am saddened by the direction that this forum has taken. What was once a source of entertainment has become something terribly different. I wish I knew how to correct this problem, to help make this game more fun for all who participate in it, but I fear that there are too many of us that believe the demogame does not need any correcting. So, with a heavy heart, for the time being, I will look elsewhere for my entertainment. Good luck to you all.
 
Well, not quite the post I like to follow ...

Here's what I assume about our leaders, and what I expect from them.

I assume all of us have played Civ III, with most at a mid-level difficulty. Regardless, we all know what to expect, or what we might expect to happen.

From that, I expect our leaders to look at what *might* happen in the next series of turns, and start planning for that. For example - we've now met the Russians - what should we do if they demand tribute? Likely - no, but it is possible. It's a discussion that should happen periodically.

We've gotten into somewhat of a habit of "just handle it in the chat" for things. As most of you know, I don't like that. I want to see these discussions and decisions happen in the forums, ahead of time where ALL can participate. Our strength lies in the broad spectrum of talents and backgrounds we bring to the game. We need to use this, to gain from this.

Change is difficult though, and not always pleasant. It sometimes takes something significant to alter things. We saw that in DG3 - there is no question that the quality of instructions and discussion rose after certain events. I sincerely hope that Rik taking a hard line, especially for the second time in two turns, will be the push for everyone to start looking ahead at the possible, not there mere probable.

I challenge all our leaders to several things:
* Think and plan ahead (What's our position re: Russia? Great discussion start CG)
* Actively work with other leaders (why was there nothing crossing from Internal Affairs and Defense about an escort for a settler?)
* Have fun!

/me steps off soap box.
Next!

-- Ravensfire
 
Back
Top Bottom