The Tale of the Years 1853 - 1863.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

How can you do something that a poll specifically rejected?? A simple question.

Monk

Let me attempt to answer this one.

Polls are for the guidance of ministers (and to a lesser extent our noble leader). There are a number of reasons why this is the general principle. For example the poll may be technically deficient. The poll or it's result may be ambiguous. The poll result may be modified as a result of subsequent discussion. And something may come up during game play. Please note, these are some of the reasons why we adopt the general principle that polls are for guidance. They are not an exclusive set of circumstances under which a poll can be disregarded.

Polls can (and have) been disregarded by a strong minded minister who "knew better" than the populace. (In the instance I am thinking of he was probably right.)

What happens when a poll is disregarded? That depends on how serious the citizens judge it to be. Usually there is some grumbling. It may well influence how the voting goes at the next round of elections. It might lead to an attempt to impeach the minister and if enough citizens agree, the minister will be impeached.

Why have polls if they can be disregarded? They are often use for ministers to seek general endorsement of the proposed plan. They also allow minister to guage public opinion on a potentially disputed topic. And they provide a useful vehical to discuss the current state of the game.

For the record, here is what I said when you first asked about the mechanics of the game.

"Only the current leader actually plays the game - and playing ahead by anyone else is frowned upon. In previous games only the ministers got to see the game saves, but in this one they are being posted. IIRC the leader is free to follow (or not) any advice given in a posting. He (or she) can also disregard the results of polls, but this is likely to anger the populace so is not done lightly. Polls are normally posted by ministers, but can be posted by citizens in extreme circumstances. The one absolute rule that will lead to impeachmnet if broken is that all polls must have at least one option involving a banana - I have no idea why!"

RJM at Sleeper's

[Added in editing]

If a minister ignores or disregards a poll in his report to the leader, the fault is with the minister. The leader may choose to disregard the ministerial advice on the grounds that it goes against a poll result, just as he can choose to disregard any ministerial advice. More usually, he would be expected to follow the ministerial advice despite the error on the part of the minister.

[MrWhereItsAt]

BM - I do not mean shame on anyone. The shake of the head smiley means I am shaking my head at how I am puzzled that you do not understand that we have answered your question to the best of our abilities. If you do not understand then THAT is a shame, and we're sorry. But we're all right here, wondering how else to explain things. You cannot say we have not listened and answered your question just because you are either unhappy with that answer or you do not understand what we mean by our answer.

Feel free to ask further questions, and we will answer those as best we can. But your previous questions have been asked and answered in as many ways as is possible. What sort of answer would make you think the opposite, that you have been listened to and, in fact, answered? That is what I do not understand. And remember that we have not forced you to leave, you are apparently choosing to leave us of your own accord. You and anyone else are still welcome here.

Tell us what you would have done differently, in cavey's position, and we will then be able to discuss that from a DG perspective. I see the conflict in the polls, and it is only natural that a conflict in results will leave at least one of them contradicted. How can two opposing sides of a point of view be satisfied without some compromise?

[Bloody Monk]

Thank you RJM. I appreciate your patience and the absence of judgement in your advice.

It is now clear to me that I have been operating under a false belief about the nature of DG games. I had the idea in my head that "Democracy" meant that the group worked out a consensus and the game was then played on that basis. I did not realize that there was so much leeway for the gameplayer to do whatever. I guess I thought that there was some responsiblitity to announce it to the group when the instructions were unworkable and have the conflicts worked out. That's what "Democracy" meant to me. But, I was wrong. And that's my problem.

This is a different game than I thought, but, obviously, you guys are comfortable with the way it is played. You have been doing things this way for years, so it works. Perhaps I will understand all this better after watching for a while, which is what I thought I should be doing in the begining. I will post again if there is something that I think will be helpful; but, otherwise, I think I will just observe.

Thanks, RJ.

Monk

[Sparrowhawk]

I hope you will continue to observe as stated BM. I am feeling more then a little guilty for pushing you to take on the role of Minister due to our lack of interested parties. I first got hooked on this concept around a year ago and took a while to get the entire concept of the game, perhaps I should have encouraged you to do the same rather then push you into (not one but two! ) positions as Minister.

I think you did a great job in both, and look forward to you again taking an active role in the game at any time in the future.

As for the right and wrong of this all, I am going to play politician and say that I am not sure anyone is "wrong" in this. The "Democracy Game" as in a real life democracy, is far from perfect.
- citizens don't always vote, and then are unhappy with the recommendations of the ministers
- ministers phrase questions to slant the vote towards their planned course of action
- presidents (or Consuls or whatever) take what they want from the polls and use it towards their own game ends

Am I saying any of these happened in this circumstance? No.
But do they happen frequently? Yes.

My view is that the intention of the game is that we all develop (and vote on in a democratic fashion) one strategy in a number of key areas of the game (War/Science/Foreign) and then the leader attempts to implement those strategies in the playing of the game. The problems arise in that their are several ministers with different goals (not unlike an actual Democracy, and not unlike the Council in the actual Civ game) who differ in opinion and advice.

I don't envy any President in making the choices he must make, (and you don't have to look very far back in the archives to find some times when I have been annoyed with the choices of the President), but I believe the leader must balance the choices in the game with the directions in the Minister Reports and the polls, hopefully using some common sense in the balance (and in this specific instance, I am not sure the vote was so clear as to indicate how many Colleseums we intended in how many cities).

I apologize for my silence on the debate, but I don't have a clear idea of "right" or "wrong" on this one (the discussion between Cavebear and Bloody Monk), and while sitting on the fence perhaps I may have helped to mediate, I didn't feel it was my place to do so and kept silent (and it now seems that was in error).

/me (puts hand up as guilty as charged)

[cavebear]

Monk, I am glad you have returned even if an observor and an ocassional poster. I hesitate to say anything, but I will...

We *are* different from most of the other Demo games, I gather. I did not know this. We *are* a bit more hierarchal. Democracy means to us that every Citizen gets to vote, has a voice in discussion, is listened to (even when conflicting desires are expressed), and participates in the elections of Ministers and Leader (Consul at the moment).

I understand your confusion at our different style of play. We have a style where elcted leaders have more discretion than you are used to; I wish I had realized that earlier, I would have explained things differently (with more knowledge and different words).

In our games, we are perhaps less formal. We have Ministers post the polls they choose, the Mnisters make recommendations to the Presaident, and the President does what he can from the sometimes conflicting recommendations.

I suppose we have more of a friendly game than an excellent one. We tend to trade off duties; so we tend to allow more leeway of one person at the top than some other games do. I really wish I had understood that when you first posted some concerns. But I haven't tried other Demo games, so I didn't know.

I did try to do what I thought everyone wanted done. Obviously, I failed in your view. That doesn't mean you were wrong, nor that I was. I simply made some overall judgements. Yes, I started too many Colosseums. 4 would have been better than 7, but the momentum carried me. I wish our 9 colony cities had 4 Colosseums, 2 Temples, and 3 Settlers under constructiuon. It seemed a good idea at the time...

We actually tried a new idea this game. The Leader should reflect the kind of government of our civ. When we were in Despotism, for example, the Leader had no requirement to seek guidance of the Citizens. Under Monarchy, the Leader was truly a King, with ability to request advice only as desired. In Republic, the Consul is actually closer to what you are familiar with, but still in great control of the game. In Democracy, the Leader will be more controlled by the Citizens and Ministers Of course, under Fundy or Communism, things could get worse again. But this game is just an experiment.

In short, sorry I didn't understand the true basis of your concerns. I suppose the real answer to your question is that, while I didn't follow your guidance in the way you meant, I tried to (really and truly, I intend to build more cities based on your plan) but (as Consul in a Republic) I didn't have to follow that advice to the letter. But I still tried to follow the gist of all advice). Does that make sense?

We don't have the most definate rules for our game, but it does have some advantages.

Anyway, you are welcome here, in whatever role you choose and whatever position you feel comfortable with now or in the future.

[Bloody Monk]

@ Sparrowhawk

Don't worry about it, Sparrowhawk. I didn't know how much I didn't know, or how much what I thought I knew was wrong. It's no wonder my questions made so little sense. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.

I need some time, or more input, so that I can understand the whole polling thing. I see how they are important as a basis for discussion and group involvement; but, at the end of the day they hold little weight. Polls seem to have little value compared to the time devoted to doing them, but I'm willing to admit that this conclusion may be based on another misunderstanding.

Hopefully, it will become more clear in the fullness of time.

@ cavebear,

Thanks also to you. Your discussion here helps to understand the process better and some collage of the last few posts would make a valuable addition to the topped Rules thread...I think. (For new folk like me anyway.)

One more question...
Would it be completely unworkable, in those situations where you (or future turnmasters) find you have been given conflicting suggestions, that you ask for more discussion on those points before you proceed to play??

It seems to me that going through the motions of democratic involvement would be more important than keeping to a play schedule. The degree of discretion that the turnmaster possesses--as I now understand it--seems not much different from a Succession Game. Both can pretty much do what they want. That's why I've been trying to puzzle out where the Democracy part comes in.

I assure you, my questions were never about what you did as much as trying to understand the process. I'm sorry I had such a hard time getting that across and that I upset you so.

Monk

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

Hopefully, it will become more clear in the fullness of time.

I am much relieved to hear that I was mistaken in suspecting that you might be leaving because you were disagreed with. I apologise for even considering that idea now I know that all you decided to do was step back and watch once you realised you had some way to go to understand fully the weird way we go about things here.

Would it be completely unworkable, in those situations where you (or future turnmasters) find you have been given conflicting suggestions, that you ask for more discussion on those points before you proceed to play??

It seems to me that going through the motions of democratic involvement would be more important than keeping to a play schedule.

Perhaps, but a number of times in the past (and in many other DGs too, a delay in keeping the game moving has effectively killed interest, and caused grave problems, and far more often than a mistake in play has. We will have to somehow find a balance between these two competing desires, and hopefully this is something you [Bcan[/B] help us with right now, BM.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I am much relieved to hear that I was mistaken in suspecting that you might be leaving because you were disagreed with. I apologise for even considering that idea now I know that all you decided to do was step back and watch once you realised you had some way to go to understand fully the weird way we go about things here.

That's a Hoot!!

After all that has transpired, this is what you say (cavebear originally said as much too); that I would leave or be upset because I was disagreed with?? This is what you think this has been about??

I'm happy for you that you are relieved and I accept your apology. But, dude, what drives folk away is having their sincere questions be ignored and go unanswered because nobody can be bothered to listen (to the question as opposed to their internal demons and preconceptions) AND, can't take an "I don't understand" statement at face value. Letting your suspicions run wild is on you.

Leave because I was disagreed with?? No way, fellow!! That was never my point. Besides, seeing how this new stategy plays out is way too interesting to leave now!!

Now, can we take all our collective relief and go play some Civ?? Please.

Monk

[cavebear]

Yes!