CoL amendment - Announcing the turn chats 1 week prior to

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. Speaking entirely for myself as a citzen...

I am not convinced either way. My natural inclination was 'No', the President and VP should be left as unfettered as possible to make progress in the game, however...

GodKing is making good points. The people are supposed to be part of this game. They must be given some consideration. Not to mention the SMC himself when a major campaign is about to culminate in decisive action.

On the other hand, we are hearing from some of the officials who are students that their lives are too chaotic to be able to plan effectively (forgive me if I am misinterpreting). Well... not a very convincing reason IMHO. In essence, that says that the hopes and plans of close to 300 people depend entirely on the whims of 1 or 2 people who either lack the ability or the inclination to act responsibly. That may sound harsh. Sorry, but these are the choices we make.

If one wishes to accept or seek an honour within any community, the honour of being nominated to a post, then that person owes the people who are served the consideration of at least trying to accomodate the members of that community. From this point of view, GodKing's ammendment may serve as a warning to those who lack the ability to plan in advance, or who already carry too heavy a load, not to seek office in the first place.

Still undecided.

As an aside. Where is the Bill of Rights? I still don't see it appended to the CoL.

[Captain]

Ninot, of course you can't make everyone happy. While you have my sympathies, you should have expected that as President people would blame you for playing too few turnchats AND for playing too many, without you doing anything differently. I guess that's one of the greatest challenges of being President (or a minister). I wish you all the best in juggling real life and the C3DG without antagonizing too many people. I think we all know it is not easy but impatience or frustration takes precedence. The somewhat impersonal nature of the internet does that.

While *we* may speak loudly and abrasively at times, I hope you know that we do understand and our concern is only for a fun and enjoyable experience for everyone involved in the C3DG, you included.

With that in mind, I don't see this proposal as threatening. I see it as a way to help make this more fun for everyone. Plan and post publicly when the turnchats are, as you have already been doing, and hopefully that will help more people try to plan to make it to the turnchats. You still decide, with your ministers - this just gives a chance for greater participation by others. If you can't make 7 days, there's an out. Just before you play, post a new thread with this info (heck, just cut and paste if you want):

We are playing a turnchat at Time, Date. Rationale is that it is known that sufficient ministers are available at this time and the game requires progression to maintain interest in the C3DG forums.

This turn chat is (in addition to) or (replacing ) the regularly scheduled turnchat.

Signed,
President Ninot
Minister W
Minister X
Minister Y
Minister Z

How's that? Remember, the amendment isn't restricting you. It simply formalizes a courtesy to the citizenry who want to participate, and allows the executive to take action where warranted without needing permission so long as they publish the existence of the turnchat with some rationale. It does not spell out what rationale is required.


My one holdback is that I'm not sure how many ministers are typically present. Perhaps 4 is too many to require. Maybe 3?

[Captain]

hmm, yeah now that i see what nye wrote, what he said.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On the other hand, we are hearing from some of the officials who are students that their lives are too chaotic to be able to plan effectively (forgive me if I am misinterpreting). Well... not a very convincing reason IMHO. In essence, that says that the hopes and plans of close to 300 people depend entirely on the whims of 1 or 2 people who either lack the ability or the inclination to act responsibly. That may sound harsh. Sorry, but these are the choices we make.

If one wishes to accept or seek an honour within any community, the honour of being nominated to a post, then that person owes the people who are served the consideration of at least trying to accomodate the members of that community.

NYE, you make some good points, as always, but i must defend my stance.

True, with the current system, those in charge are given incredible power that maybe isn't being used in such a way that everyone benefits. And, those people's schedules are the ones that most directly affect the turnchat schedule.

But say we put a week's notice on turnchats. Anyone can suddenly have something come up within that week that could throw the whole schedule out of whack. That includes everything from the common citizen to any elected official.

And with the school year coming up, many of us will not have the freedom of a very tight schedule to follow. We all have friends, im sure, and we all have friends that will suddenly, one afternoon, declare "hey, you wanna go (insert activity) on (insert day)?". Are all elected officials supposed to start alienating their friend because a bunch of their online friends have schedules they want to follow?

A week is an outrageous amount of time for circumstances to change. I can agree to a smaller ammount of time, like 4 days notice, but a week is unreasonable.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yes, a week is definately too long, I think. Some kind of timeframe would be good, though. 4 days...3?

And for the record, I have been vocal about the too much/little debate, but feel that Ninot is doing a good job with all that he is face with. Especially with people like me a constant thorn in his side...

Oh, and I second NYE, where is the Bill of Rights? It WAS voted on, it DID pass the 2/3 mark...

[Ninot]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Yes, a week is definately too long, I think. Some kind of timeframe would be good, though. 4 days...3?

And for the record, I have been vocal about the too much/little debate, but feel that Ninot is doing a good job with all that he is face with. Especially with people like me a constant thorn in his side...

Oh, and I second NYE, where is the Bill of Rights? It WAS voted on, it DID pass the 2/3 mark...

lol, don't worry UnOrthOdox, pains in my side is what i got elected for... kinda like the lamb ya sacrifice

that ammendment will be going up veeery soon. Remember, when i got into office, I was still putting up ammendments that were voted upon in Trip's term. I hope not to repeat that trend.

[Jon Shafer]

GK brings up too many good points for me not to vote yes. In the off-chance that I can stick around at all in a few weeks, then I'll need to know when stuff is going on in order to try to make it. IMO, people who are elected to offices should be willing to accept that some people's situations don't warrant unlimited flexibility before they go up for election, and it is their responsibility to be flexible for the nation, not the other way around.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hmm. I read one post, then decide "yes", but read the next one for the hell of it, and then reconsider: "no". Oh, wait, there's another one: "yes"......

I will not try to write anything eloquent; any such point I may have to put forward has already been commented on by Captain, Ninot, NYE, GodKing and others, and far better than I could manage at the moment. Thus I will just say what I want, and hope this is reasonable enough to strike a chord in others.

In the end, I think (as I would ) that we should not have such an amendment. I don't like amendments, setting things in stone and forcing Ministers to do things. There is always some idiot who will try to take a small non-case to court. I want ample prior notice of a turnchat, but I don't want the possibility of a trial because of a sudden reschedule or urgent need for a quick chat. That would be moronic. I think we need to agree on a "normal" time and day for chats, and if it is necessary every now and again, we play on different occasions. We should not, once schedules settle down, have too many deviations from the norm, but surely some are permissible.

In the sudden need for a chat, I think we should not have one out of the blue with a day's notice or less, hopefully we can get at least two days notice. I certainly realise that having a position here (however much importance some attribute to it ) is but one aspect in busy lives. Let us think of our Prez/VP etc here. I think we owe them for their efforts, and we need to make their lives as easy as possible, as well as our own.

In conclusion, I think we should agree on an informal Code of Practice (NOT Law) for a reasonable amount of warning, say 3-5 days. The Prez and VP will endeavour to meet this expectation, but it should be understood when there are exceptions. The only time when we need to worry is in very exceptional circumstances where this happens frequently, we have no "normal" chats for a few weeks, or turnchats are done with less than a day's notice.

We have a certain responsibility too. A responsibility to check the forum here as much as we can, ideally at least daily. If you are a regular here, we do you sometimes spend a day or two away? The same sort of commitments are experienced by our Executive, and if we can take the time off for the important things, then so can they. If we choose our Ministers carefully enough, we can be sure that they will do their utmost for us.

And if you can't make a chat or two 'cause they need to be hastily rescheduled - tough s*** for you, mate.
The times haven't suited me for a month or more. Just think, you might miss all of them. It ain't that bad if you miss a few.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Hmm. I read one post, then decide "yes", but read the next one for the hell of it, and then reconsider: "no". Oh, wait, there's another one: "yes"......

I will not try to write anything eloquent; any such point I may have to put forward has already been commented on by Captain, Ninot, NYE, GodKing and others, and far better than I could manage at the moment. Thus I will just say what I want, and hope this is reasonable enough to strike a chord in others.

In the end, I think (as I would ) that we should not have such an amendment. I don't like amendments, setting things in stone and forcing Ministers to do things. There is always some idiot who will try to take a small non-case to court. I want ample prior notice of a turnchat, but I don't want the possibility of a trial because of a sudden reschedule or urgent need for a quick chat. That would be moronic. I think we need to agree on a "normal" time and day for chats, and if it is necessary every now and again, we play on different occasions. We should not, once schedules settle down, have too many deviations from the norm, but surely some are permissible.

In the sudden need for a chat, I think we should not have one out of the blue with a day's notice or less, hopefully we can get at least two days notice. I certainly realise that having a position here (however much importance some attribute to it ) is but one aspect in busy lives. Let us think of our Prez/VP etc here. I think we owe them for their efforts, and we need to make their lives as easy as possible, as well as our own.

In conclusion, I think we should agree on an informal Code of Practice (NOT Law) for a reasonable amount of warning, say 3-5 days. The Prez and VP will endeavour to meet this expectation, but it should be understood when there are exceptions. The only time when we need to worry is in very exceptional circumstances where this happens frequently, we have no "normal" chats for a few weeks, or turnchats are done with less than a day's notice.

We have a certain responsibility too. A responsibility to check the forum here as much as we can, ideally at least daily. If you are a regular here, we do you sometimes spend a day or two away? The same sort of commitments are experienced by our Executive, and if we can take the time off for the important things, then so can they. If we choose our Ministers carefully enough, we can be sure that they will do their utmost for us.

And if you can't make a chat or two 'cause they need to be hastily rescheduled - tough s*** for you, mate.
The times haven't suited me for a month or more. Just think, you might miss all of them. It ain't that bad if you miss a few.

all good points. and, all i can say after reading them is.. your right,we cant make this LAW. we need flexibility. A week is too much, and not everyone can get things their own speacial way all of the time. A sort of Practice may be in need.

But not a law that will alienate certain types of people from jobs they would otherwise be very fit to do. If this law passes, then probably so will other laws that limit what kinds of people can take official positions here. Soon it will be OTHER limitation on turnchats, like the exact hour it must always happen (thus allienating some timezones forever, where some ideas are still fruitful enough to allow leeway), or maybe it will be a law stating only people who are sure to be able to make all turnchats can be elected.

btw... even though it isnt totally required by the Code of Laws, i have a feeling this ammendment is in DRASTIC need of a thread leading up to it. none of the ideas are very refined (ahem, the 1 week example) and its probably losing votes one way or the other because of it.

oh, and on that note.. if i wanted to be a real *******, i could declare this thread unfit for recognition. The first post has points on the good sides for if this passes... but NOTHING on the bad points, and nothing on the good points for if it doesnt pass. That makes it biased.

[notyoueither]

Not to be a piss-ant Ninot, however the power to judge polls as valid or no has been removed from your office to another, hopefully less political forum.

However, yes, you are correct that this ammendment would have benefitted greatly from a discussion prior to the poll being launched. It may in fact be a point of 'common law'. In any event, I am positive that a discussion prior to polling may very well have resulted in 70 or 80% approval by this point. Instead of the 58% or so as of now.

However that may be, I as a citizen do hope that you and future leaders pay heed to the fact that this premptively lauched poll is carrying a clear majority based most probably on the events of only 2 days in question.

In short, give consideration and consideration will be given. A mere extention of the Golden Rule.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not to be a piss-ant Ninot, however the power to judge polls as valid or no has been removed from your office to another, hopefully less political forum.

AKA one known as NYE.

But I agree. This should have been discussed first, but the premise behind it and the current results of the poll are clear: We need more organization in the turnchat schedule rather than 'whatever is convenient' for whoever happens to be in power at the time. Part of the official positions here is the responsibility to be available for the public, not the other way around.

[Kramerman]

a week's notice is something great for people who dont have jobs or social lives, but for those who do, like me its hard to plan this kind of thing in advance.

I dont believe this. He is obvoiusly a nerd like us and is merely trying to cover it up... tsk... tsk ...tsk.

I will hold my vote just because it seems a week is to far in advance. But it doesnt really matter to me. I dont plan my schedual around Civ III Democracy Game turn chats, so I rarely participate no matter how far in advance you tell me. But I believe Im one of the few of our citizens like this.

Kman

[Spiffor]

It seems a compromise could be found with a 4-day notice. If the poll fails, it would be impossible to officially repoll within the next 3 weeks.
BUT, Ninot could insitute a 4-day notice as a common practice, which will enter the law easily when we repoll.
That's why I vote no to this poll.

[Harovan]

I hold my vote, but hereby announce to vote "yes", if the time is reduced to 4 days. This is a reasonable compromise, a week is too much.

I'm sorry to say this, but this term has been a nightmare so far. I don't blame this on a single person, but in general it was.

First, the turnchats were too frequent. There are people out there with a real life, you know, and family men like myself. Up to four turnchats a week (Sun, Tue, Thu, Fri) are far too much. I managed to make it possible to be at every turnchat so far and I did the work of 2, sometimes 3 ministers. Today will be the first turnchat I will miss, for an event I had planned ahead for months. Enough is enough. I won't run for any office in the future, if this continues.

Second, inactive ministers. I'm not talking about those who announced, that they can't make it and left precise orders or deputies. I know, some have honorable reasons not to make it to the chats. See Sn00py. The turnchats are in a time, when he has to work. I don't blame him. Or see the City planner office, which is completely abandonned. The game suffers from this, big deal. Quickpolls are helt, sometimes with amazing strange results. For instance, we were once discussing, what Banana HQ has to produce next. I voted for prebuilding 10 shields for a temple and then poprush. Others for a spearman. I lost the quickpoll by a hair (4:5). Next turn, I said "NOW we could poprush a temple in BHQ" and a quickpoll was helt again. I won overwhelming. Talk about logic of quickpolls. They are evil. And they can seriously ruin the game.

Third, game version chaos. It's bad that we play on 2 different versions. Most players have upgraded to 1.29f, because it has big benefits. But no, for the theoretical case, that somebody with a Mac could run for president, we stick with an old version. Reasonable may be, but annoying. "Ninot, tell me where the Persian settler stack went in your game". Stupid question, but in mine they went different. This also ruins the turnchats.

Probably, there are more issues, but these are enough for now. I'm sure, I'm not the only one who thinks so. I will take it this term, and do my duty as always. But unless something seriously changes, I won't run for any office again. I will step back in favor of those, who can devote all their time for this one game. And I really hope, there will be enough reliable candidates.

Please, make the turnchats predictable. And let's them organize better than in the past. And a plea to all ministers: Either participate or sent a deputy (best variant). Or at least leave precise orders, which can be followed without a quickpoll. Please save the fun in this game.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
...a plea to all ministers: Either participate or sent a deputy (best variant).

A further plea to all Ministers and Ministers-to-be (or even Ministers-ever-hopeful) - make your voice heard about turnchat times. If we don't have turnchat times where those who want positions can participate, we are screwed. At present I am one such potential candidate (good or no) who is excluded from the chats. Ensure that not all of you are, lest we perish.