Foreign Affair Poll 1865

[cavebear]

As Acting Foreign Affairs Minister by default, I thought we should consider how to deal with the Celts, our new-found allies.

Last turn, they granted us an alliance, gave their maps, and gifted us Mobile Warfare. Dare we push the relationship further? Or should we be cautious?

[Bloody Monk]

This is a critical, crucial point which I can not emphasize enough.

Please do NOT initiate contact of any kind, for any reason, with the Celts. At least not for a very long time, many turnsets. If we initiate contact, they will bust the Alliance.

Getting an alliance this late in the game was a Blessing. Keeping it will be hard, if not impossible. And they now know where we are. That's the bad news about our getting their maps.

Our survival depends on having our Celtic Allies hang with us for a goodly long time. Do not push it.

We really do not want contact with anyone yet.

Monk

[cavebear]

So vote! (I try not to vote first in my own polls so as not to prejudice the voting).

I tend to agree, though, that I want to leave our new ally alone. For one thing, they may like us better after a couple of Caravans are delivered. But others may know more about AI reactions than I do.

[Bloody Monk]

So vote indeed!!

I did not see anything that made any sense to vote FOR. Which is to say, you did not have an option to NEVER contact the Celts. And the array of proposals you offer seem to presuppose some kind of contact, the main question being when.

I presented a piece describing the consequences of what you are proposing precisely because it seemed you did not have a great understanding of "AI reactions". And I have written about this contact thing many times already.

One of the things that completely escapes me is why there are not more discussions BEFORE polls are offered so that key points can be identified and, in that way, shape the polls. This is a democracy where the campaign speeches follow the elections/polls. It seems backward to me; but, I am trying to get the hang of this Demo Game scheme.

Monk

[Bloody Monk]

BTW, you can ask for a gift; you don't get to specify techs, gold, units, or bananas.

But that presupposes you get to that screen. There is a good chance that any contact will result in an immediate and preemptive break of the alliance.

Monk

[shade]

best thing might be to leave them alone, don't bother them, and dump as many camels in their lap as possible.
As long as we are allies, they are 1 angry AI who might try to kill us less.

Shade , looks like I got the first vote

[cavebear]

1E gave freedom from talking to the Celts until the next polls. The poll offerred when and "not now". I'm surprised you did not understrand that. I think that covers the possibilities.

You stated " I presented a piece describing the consequences of what you are proposing precisely because it seemed you did not have a great understanding of "AI reactions". And I have written about this contact thing many times already."

And we will always re-evaluate things each turn based on the current situation. The only advice that ultimately matters is that which comes from the Ministers based on the majority vote of the Citizens. You have your opiions on how to succeed at this game. So do I and so do others. What matters is the common aggreement of how to proceed *even if that is wrong in your view*. The will of the citizens will determine what we do! You need to understand that.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by cavebear

And we will always re-evaluate things each turn based on the current situation. The only advice that ultimately matters is that which comes from the Ministers based on the majority vote of the Citizens.

Yep. Voted for the option that stops us contacting the Celts. With this matter, there is no need to second-guess the future, and if we keep voting against talking with the Celts then it's the same anyway. And if we got a good reason to talk to them (we WANTED them to break the alliance, so we can keep our spotless rep), then we would be in breach of the poll result that said to never contact them. Why needlessly do that when we can just as easily do it this way?

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by cavebear
1E gave freedom from talking to the Celts until the next polls. The poll offerred when and "not now". I'm surprised you did not understrand that. I think that covers the possibilities.

You stated " I presented a piece describing the consequences of what you are proposing precisely because it seemed you did not have a great understanding of "AI reactions". And I have written about this contact thing many times already."

And we will always re-evaluate things each turn based on the current situation. The only advice that ultimately matters is that which comes from the Ministers based on the majority vote of the Citizens. You have your opiions on how to succeed at this game. So do I and so do others. What matters is the common aggreement of how to proceed *even if that is wrong in your view*. The will of the citizens will determine what we do! You need to understand that.

What I understand, cavebear, is that when the facts are against you, you try to make the arguement about something else. It is especially unhelpful when it becomes a scold. You need to understand that.

Monk

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
One of the things that completely escapes me is why there are not more discussions BEFORE polls are offered so that key points can be identified and, in that way, shape the polls. This is a democracy where the campaign speeches follow the elections/polls. It seems backward to me; but, I am trying to get the hang of this Demo Game scheme.

Monk

That would certainly be a better ideal way of going about things. If we can somehow predict the discussions and start them before the time we need to make a poll (at least for 2-3 days) and not slow the game down too much, then this would be awesome. I'm not quite sure how we can go about this though. This is an area where it seems you're experience could lend a great help.

But it's clear to me there is an option in this poll to avoid contact for this turnset - surely that satisfies the requirement.... Now the idea of not contacting them for the forseeable future has been raised, it is an obvious inclusion for the next poll. So it comes up next poll and gets vote for/against. No harm no foul.

Your points are always well taken, BM, but at times I have to say I am confused by why you seem (in this case at least) to be railing against something for no reason. Whether we vote now to never contact them or we vote now to not contact them for the next turnset and next time vote to never contact them, surely the result is the same? It looks like you think that all options of this poll necessitate contact - that is not true.

Please bear with us if we seem slow on the uptake. I assure you that next time there is a poll on this there will be an option to not contact the Celts until another poll decides otherwis. You have made the point clear, and I thank you for that. Is that good enough?

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

Your points are always well taken, BM, but at times I have to say I am confused by why you seem (in this case at least) to be railing against something for no reason.

I've given this some thought and I believe I know a possible answer to your confusion. I apoligize for not being more clear, that my reasons remained hidden to you. However,...

Just because you see no reason for something you should not assume that I had none. What's up with that?? Do you think I, or anyone, would take the time (quite a lot of time in my case) to write and post something for no reason?? Did you try to examine your unstated assumptions and then reread what I wrote from my point of view, to try and discern my reasons?? I assure you reasons are there.

Perhaps the problems arise because I believe substance is more important than process.

You (and cavebear) seem to think any poll that a majority agree about is the gold standard. I think polls should be about things that have a reasonable chance of success according to how the game works. I do not believe THIS poll should have even been offered at all, much less, as you indicated, that it should be offered again and again. Why offer and defend a poll based on a flawed assumption?? Do not the folk voting in a poll have a right to assume that the questions in the poll have some basis in the way of the game??

For the very, very literal minded let me say this. It is not about now -v- never; it's about misleading folk that the other options were options that would work.

To offer a ten question poll where eight of the questions would lead to busting the Alliance is like hiding "booby traps" for the unwary.
--I questioned a poll that could trap folk into voting for something they never intended--indeed, I am sure the traps were unintended, but they are there.
--And the relevant information had already been given, at least once, which should have mooted the poll.
--And a statement was made (by cavebear) to the effect that the poll was not based on a knowledge of "AI reactions".
--And I offered what I thought was a reasonable solution, that in situations where game knowledge is minimal, that a discussion should be sponsored first before the poll.
--And I was met by another rant that, once again, questioned my motives and pinned negative, selfish intentions on me.

And you're confused??

Perhaps the poll could have asked, "Do we want to bust the Alliance yet??"; or a discussion could have asked, "Does anyone else remember the game working in the way Bloody Monk says??" But, to be ripped (again) for offering my knowledge of the game really sucks. And, the compliment not withstanding, so does being scolded for doing "something for no reason."

I have gone into a lot of detail and spent most of eight hours writing this and I really hope I am not once again misunderstood. It is not my intention to make anyone wrong or to say that only I am right...or to insist that I have to have my way. I just want to be helpful and to have fun playing this version of the greatest game. I really hope folk can respond to, and not just react to, what I have offered here.

Ideally, everyone's experiences in the game would be shared, creating an informed electorate, which would then vote in polls that could provide the best chance for collective success. Things could still go toes up, but everyone would learn more about the game and that would be a good thing, I think.

Monk

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

I've given this some thought and I believe I know a possible answer to your confusion. I apoligize for not being more clear, that my reasons remained hidden to you. However,...

Just because you see no reason for something you should not assume that I had none. What's up with that?? Do you think I, or anyone, would take the time (quite a lot of time in my case) to write and post something for no reason?? Did you try to examine your unstated assumptions and then reread what I wrote from my point of view, to try and discern my reasons?? I assure you reasons are there.

I know, as there is almost always something I learn from each of your posts. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but it seems here to me as if there is no great problem. I am sorry if I do not emphasise enough in my posts that I clearly just do not understand your position and am hoping that you will explain them so I DO understand. The option is there not to contact the Celts this turnset, and we can make that more permanent with the next poll following your post alerting us as to this being a good option. This is why I am not worried. This poll is not omitting the choice to not contact the Celts and thus we will not endanger the alliance through lack of choice in the poll. Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I feel as if I am not getting my point across as you feel about your own point.

You have pointed out a general weakness of DG polls however, that I have at some level known about for some time. How to make a poll balanced so that people do not accidentally vote for a poor option, if more of the options are poor than good. The problem is that often there is an action/set of actions that are the 'best', but it would not be a DG if a poll was started without opposing options, or no poll at all because one action was 'clearly' the only way to go. After all, the poll starter cannot always know the best option for certain, or have considered all of the reasons for each option, especially where they are not a Civ2 master like you certainly are. Thus with polls often we (as DGers) present a series of obvious actions, both (apparently) clearly positive, clearly negative, and sometimes in the grey area.

In order to make things clearer, it is often common practice for the poll starter to post the poll, and in the next post to mention their support or recommendations, so as not to be seen to be influencing the vote by including their bias in the first thing that people read in the thread. Also in the first post often the benefits/detriments of each case are often mentioned. In this case, cavebear did not do wither of these things. Perhaps he was hoping that others like ourselves would discuss the various options in this thread.

At times I have posted polls with a clear set of alternatives, one or two of which have seemed to me, even with prior discussion, to have been 'best', only to have someone who did not take part in the earlier discussion disagree and post on an even better idea not considered, and not in the poll. Then we are in a bit of a mess, but that is what the Abstain/Banana/Something else option is for. I have seen many polls where we have had to go for a write-in option that was missed for some reason on other from the poll choices. This is certainly non-ideal, as lurkers tend not to participate if they have to post to vote.

My points here are that it is not always possible for a poll-starter to think of every good choice in a poll, sometimes the 'worse' options turn out to be better, and in the end we have to give people a choice, else we take the participation out of the game.

You (and cavebear) seem to think any poll that a majority agree about is the gold standard. I think polls should be about things that have a reasonable chance of success according to how the game works. I do not believe THIS poll should have even been offered at all, much less, as you indicated, that it should be offered again and again. Why offer and defend a poll based on a flawed assumption?? Do not the folk voting in a poll have a right to assume that the questions in the poll have some basis in the way of the game??

Yep, but as should be obvious we aren't experts and
sometimes people think of reasons to go for what seems to us at the time as not-so-good. I think a poll where a majority agree IS the gold standard, but yes, we have to try to make the poll as well-explained and carefully set out as possible. You are right, what we should do is have a discussion/Minister thread open beforehand where poll options are refined and discussed first. As you will have seen, such discussion threads often have only one or two participants at most. Does that then mean we should assume that everyone agrees with the single option discussed by a minority of posters rather than present a choice? I am not trying to be argumentative, I should add, just putting forward my thoughts so we can try to understand each others' POV better.

To offer a ten question poll where eight of the questions would lead to busting the Alliance is like hiding "booby traps" for the unwary.
--I questioned a poll that could trap folk into voting for something they never intended--indeed, I am sure the traps were unintended, but they are there.

And you were right to do so. That we did not have a discussion thread first where this was caught is unfortunate and something we need to try to change now. However I don't see that people will vote for an option because it broadly appears in various slightly different forms in the same poll. We're voting on what we each think is best, and regardless if all the options are best or one is best, as long as we have a choice and we read the poll choices, or at least can choose to vote Banana/this poll does not give an option I am happy with, then the poll is not a disaster. Not perfect perhaps, but polls usually can't be (the Science one excepted). After all, no poll is infallible - someone can always vote without reading the choices or the reasons for/against each choice. There is trust in the voters to a large degree.

It is not my intention to make anyone wrong or to say that only I am right...or to insist that I have to have my way. I just want to be helpful and to have fun playing this version of the greatest game. I really hope folk can respond to, and not just react to, what I have offered here.

And neither is it mine. It is clear that, as I may misunderstand your POV, you may misunderstand mine. All I (at least) am trying to do, is present that POV and explain/defend why I think that. That's all I CAN do. I hope this is responding to, rather than reacting to. (AGH! Ended that sentence with a preposition. Bad WIA )

Ideally, everyone's experiences in the game would be shared, creating an informed electorate, which would then vote in polls that could provide the best chance for collective success. Things could still go toes up, but everyone would learn more about the game and that would be a good thing, I think.

You will not find anything about DGs than this with which I agree more. Ideals are not always possible however. Despite that, this is no reason not to aspire to them, and we need to restart general discussion threads on a variety of topics that can come up in polls soon. I think that this hasn't happened for some time due to inactivity and RL pressures. But we can try to put the efforts back in to rectify this. I recently started a military matters discussion thread (and made a right hash of my choices before the superior mind - yours - came along).

I hope this is a step in the right direction.

[cavebear]

Having gotten several good days of work done, I decided to drop in briefly. I have to comment about polls, in general.

A poll should not reflect only the poller's preferred strategy; it should offer options for all views. A choice of one-sided options is a rigged vote. Warmongers, peaceniks, traders, and builders should all have a way to express their desire whether the poller thinks those choices are good or bad. That's why it is called a "democracy game".

In this particular poll, there were 2 basic decisions. In question group #1, it was should we contact the Celts (if so when) or not. Voters who didn't think it wise to contact them had a straightforward choice; 1E (a good choice IMO). In question group #2, if voters choose to contact them, then what should be asked for. Again, very straightforward. #3 was the usual Banana option ("I don't like the choices").

Clearly, the voters made the "right" choice, but they might have voted otherwise. I try to give citizens that right; to choose. When I post a poll, I don't view it as my job to limit the choices but to offer a representative range of them whether they are my basic preferenes or not.

A poll that offerred only a choice of 3 civs to attack is a disenfranchment of those who wish to attack no one. A poll that only mentioned half of the available techs to research would be equally disenfranchising.

I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to explain what seems to have caused some confusion about my polls.

Voters rule!

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by cavebear

//
A poll should not reflect only the poller's preferred strategy; it should offer options for all views. A choice of one-sided options is a rigged vote. Warmongers, peaceniks, traders, and builders should all have a way to express their desire whether the poller thinks those choices are good or bad. That's why it is called a "democracy game".

//
Clearly, the voters made the "right" choice, but they might have voted otherwise. I try to give citizens that right; to choose. When I post a poll, I don't view it as my job to limit the choices but to offer a representative range of them whether they are my basic preferenes or not.
Voters rule!

Is it impossible to have a democracy game where the leader actually leads?? This is what I meant by worshiping process without being responsible for substance.

And this is why I feel myself to be completely unsuited for the leader postion in this game. Even if my health allowed it, this would be a bad idea. I could not bring myself to offer misguided choices in the name of some sacrosanct process. And I would feel horrible if I misled folk into making "bad" (as in weakening the game position) choices because I was compelled to include them in a poll. Hopefully, someone with a knowledge of the process will take up the mantle and the game can continue.

BTW, in another place, I was referred to as a Civ master. While that is a nice compliment, it is not the case. Some things I know to be true because of playing many games, doing many tests, AND asking many questions; but, there is much for me to learn about this great game. Many times I have read, "I've always wondered....", or some such; and the thing I want to emphasize is that folk should feel okay to ask in the Strat or General forum. The community there has been very, very helpful and willing to share their wisdom.

Monk (wishing one and all, good luck and Happy Civing!!)

[Hydey]

The leader should be voicing his/her opinion in the debates leading to a poll.
Those opposing this opinion would be free to do so in such debates.
Any polls should contain all options available with the presidents views stated clearly.