OFFICIAL - To decide once and for all on the time limit for playing turns (part1)

[Jamski]

This is part one of FOUR polls to finally settle DEMOCRATICALLY and FAIRLY the problems caused by late and persistently late playing of turns. Personally I don't have a problem with this, but some people do, and we should get this sorted out, voted on and settled.

This poll (part1) is to determine when a turn shall be deemed as being "late".

The winner needs a clear 50% majority, or there will be a run-off between the TWO (or more only in the case of an exact tie) most popular options. The poll will run for 3 days as per the old constitution. When this is settled, the decision requires a 2/3rds majority to change, as per the old constitution. Hopefully these 4 polls will be the final word on the subject.

Options are :

• less than 18 hours
• 18 hours
• 24 hours
• 36 hours
• 48 hours
• more than 48 hours
• Write-in
• Xenobanana

-Jam

[Snowflake]

I voted 48 hours. But I think people should be given exemptions for special cases.

[johndmuller]

THIS POLL IS NOT OFFICIAL

No way can we have planet-wide elections like this on the basis of one vote per person when the faction sizes are so disparate.

Who appointed these pollsters anyway?

Notice which faction is calling the polls?

[Jamski]

There is no block voting. Googlie can confirm that in no faction's private forum that people are bing instructed to vote the party line. There is no party line.

One vote - one person. That's DEMOCRACY. This poll is official enough.

If you don't like it, may I introduce you to the Xenobanana option. If more than 50% of people agree with you, we'll see. I doubt it, somehow.

NO FACTION IS CALLING THESE POLLS. We're stuck with one vote - one person whether you like it or not, and a write in vote to question the validity of the poll doesn't change anything unless you get 50% of the total vote as write in saying the poll isn't official.

This poll has NOTHING to do with ANY particular faction.

-Jam

[Flubber]

I agree with johnd

There are 5 "players" in this game. Doing things "Democratically" here should not involve a world-wide vote but should instead require a vote from each nation. Otherwise, one faction with the most members could conceivably twist the game in all sorts of ways.


That said, I believe that 36 hours is sufficient time to get the turn out. Basically my thinking is that it can take 12 hours for it to be the right time zone for the bulk of the team and then 24 hours to allow some discussion and get the turn out.

I could also see each team getting a number of "timeouts" WHEN they are faced with a big decision or are trying to plan major strategy. The team could have a little longer to play that turn without penalty . THis can be done as formally or informally as people think best.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by johndmuller
THIS POLL IS NOT OFFICIAL

No way can we have planet-wide elections like this on the basis of one vote per person when the faction sizes are so disparate.

Who appointed these pollsters anyway?

Notice which faction is calling the polls?

Do you know you can create your own polls too, Johndmuller? My understanding is that everybody has the right to create a poll or vote in a poll. What are the rules that will be enforced for the DG is determined by the CMN, ie. Googlie in this case. So really you don't need to worry about which faction is calling the polls. The Hive is very active in the public forums. This may mean that they really love this game. This may mean that they simply have too much time. That does not mean that they have any conspiracy against anybody. But I'm sure you can see that point by yourself.

[Jamski]

There are 5 "players" in this game. Doing things "Democratically" here should not involve a world-wide vote but should instead require a vote from each nation. Otherwise, one faction with the most members could conceivably twist the game in all sorts of ways.

There are many more than 5 players in this game. Its a democracy game, not a simple PBEM. This means everyone counts, from the leaders of the factions right down to those who only pop in every two weeks to see what's happening. For a question like this anyway, where the result will affect all teams equally.

It could be imagined that in the future we need to make decisions where each faction gets one vote only, but this is CERTAINLY not one of those cases.

Like I said before, we have a way of showing we don't accept the poll - its called the Xenobanana option

-Jam

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Jamski

This poll has NOTHING to do with ANY particular faction.

-Jam

Jam

I can accept that and that there is no sinister intention at all here. BUT a "one-person, one-vote" method for world government simply strikes me as wrong in principle. On earth, it would mean that India and China could decide pretty much everything.

THis is a game of 5 players. Democracy can work WITHIN each nation as that faction sees fit but when it comes to decisions about the game, IMHO, individuals can express an opinion, but any decision must be made by the factions

[Jamski]

I can accept that and that there is no sinister intention at all here. BUT a "one-person, one-vote" method for world government simply strikes me as wrong in principle. On earth, it would mean that India and China could decide pretty much everything.

True Flubber, but this isn't a "world government" decision, this is a decision that affects equally all the players of the game, whatever team they are on. In this case 1 person, one vote is the better option. There is no chance of one faction trying to decide the results of this poll, is there? Why would anyone want to do that?

There's also the argument that if the Hive, for example, are waiting for their turn, twice as many people are kept waiting, twice as much impatience..... but I think this argument is probably BS.

-Jam

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Jamski


There are many more than 5 players in this game. Its a democracy game, not a simple PBEM. This means everyone counts, from the leaders of the factions right down to those who only pop in every two weeks to see what's happening. For a question like this anyway, where the result will affect all teams equally.
-Jam

and the democracy comes in in that all the players in a faction can influence that factions vote. Since the decison affects all teams equally AS TEAMS, then each team should have a vote.

Originally posted by Jamski

It could be imagined that in the future we need to make decisions where each faction gets one vote only, but this is CERTAINLY not one of those cases.
-Jam

I disagree. There is nothing certain here at all. If you see the validity of factional votes later, why would it not be appropriate here to determine something that has consequences on a FACTION.

Originally posted by Jamski

Like I said before, we have a way of showing we don't accept the poll - its called the Xenobanana option

-Jam

This misses the point. In principle, if we had one faction that had more players than all the others combined, they could vote for something and the will of the majority of players in 4 factions would be frustrated. The " xenobanana" option works on the one -person one vote method you are proposing and the legitimacy of which I question.

A general poll could conceivably result in a decision opposed by three or even 4 factions.

[Snowflake]

Ok how about we scatch these polls and let Googliegod create these polls again? I'm just kidding. We don't want to work Googliegod till he vomit bloods (I'm sure he's already over worked). Plus I don't really see what difference that could make.

On Flubbers note, I fail to see why this is a matter of one faction against another faction. Is this because that a certain faction thinks that it is more possible that it will always be late than another faction? If a certain faction is facing some disadvantages that are imposed on it somehow outside of its control, then I can see why this faction would not want to be overruled by other factions. But which faction is facing what outside disadvantages here?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Jamski

. There is no chance of one faction trying to decide the results of this poll, is there? Why would anyone want to do that?
-Jam

I see you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. That is unlikely to change.

I see this as a game of 5 teams (each team having a separate self-interest) . IF you can accept that SOME decisions should be made by the teams, I submit that they should ALL go that way from now on. Otherwise you can get into one holy heck of an issue over which decisions are team decisions and which should be made on an individual basis.

This poll is pretty basic but I can only imagine that issues may arise where there are definite factional interests on one side of an issue or another, whether there is an attempt at bloc voting or not.

Anyway thats my personal say on the matter . . . I will be checking our private forum to see if PEACE have a factional position.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Flubber

Anyway thats my personal say on the matter . . . I will be checking our private forum to see if PEACE have a factional position.

Exactly that's what I mean. Each person can have a personal opinion on this matter. Some decisions such as game rules are actually better decided outside of a faction. For example, suppose the Hive is playing dictatorship, it may be appropriate for the game, but would it be appropriate for the Chairman to have the only say about how Hive should vote in this matter? Didn't Googliegod decide the initial game parameters on the basis of one person one vote?

[Jamski]

I don't think anyone's opinion counts for less because they are part of a larger team, Flubber, and don't worry about the Hive every using its numbers to "bloc vote" as half of our members never vote anyway.... (a sore point)

-Jam

[Flubber]

[SIZE=1]
On Flubbers note, I fail to see why this is a matter of one faction against another faction. Is this because that a certain faction thinks that it is more possible that it will always be late than another faction?

Honghu-- spoken like a Hiver -- Seriously, to me its the principle of setting out how decisions are made that impact ALL factions. Imagine that we had some super-large faction of fanatical players that wanted a super-short timeline with a penalty. They could impose that even if it was hated by all the rest. I believe in setting out methods of governance that are functional whether or not there are different factional interests. Otherwise the first question is whether an issue should be determined by individuals or factions . . . and who determines that?

Anyway, I've said my piece. Its a philosophical dirfference as to how the game should be approached and not intended as an attack on this particular poll

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Flubber



Honghu-- spoken like a Hiver

You haven't said that!

Ok, how about this. Each decision has to pass two test, one on one person on vote basis, one on one faction one vote basis, just like the House and Senete here in the US. Or, like the UN. Each person still have one vote, with some super powers, say, faction leaders, that have veto powers. Now the only worry is, would we be able to pass anything?

[Jamski]

Didn't Googliegod decide the initial game parameters on the basis of one person one vote?

Indeed, although GooglieGod, didn't exactly decide at the time, but the one-person, one-vote polls did, of which there were many. These polls should have been held then, but *holds up hands* we forgot, OK.

-Jam

[Flubber]

Originally posted by HongHu


You haven't said that!

Ok, how about this. Each decision has to pass two test, one on one person on vote basis, one on one faction one vote basis, just like the House and Senete here in the US. Or, like the UN. Each person still have one vote, with some super powers, say, faction leaders, that have veto powers. Now the only worry is, would we be able to pass anything?

Nope

Do it one way or the other, we don't ewant deadlock. I accept that one-person, one vote polls set up all the game parameters. BUt now that the game is started, it seems appropriate to treat each FACTION equally. There will be factional interests. Even this poll is somewhat factional as I can see that a Hiver was taking good-natured potshots at the University for their slow turnaround time

Individuals get votes to determine their factions policy. Then thefactions determine the rules that in the end, govern FACTIONS.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Flubber
Even this poll is somewhat factional as I can see that a Hiver was taking good-natured potshots at the University for their slow turnaround time

But haven't you noticed that ANOTHER Hiver (me ) was speaking on their behalf?

[Jamski]

Even this poll is somewhat factional as I can see that a Hiver was taking good-natured potshots at the University for their slow turnaround time

Something he had no right to do, as our previous turn had been even slower but it was good-natured roleplay, so.....

-Jam

[Googlie]

I believe that the pre-game decision polls (one person one vote) were a carryforward from ACDG-1 (which wasn't an actual PBEM, but rather a "phantom" game), where every participant had a say in the rules and regulations governing the play.

I have no problem with 1-person / 1-vote, so with 58 voting members (talking me out of each faction) no single faction (yet) has an absolute majority)

And if it interests anyone, I voted in the polls - 48 hours to discuss, argue, then play the turn. If not done by then, I give a warning of a 12 hour "grace" period, after which I open the turn, hit "turn complete" and post it.

Siure, that could mean 12 1/2 days for a single turn cycle (and a year of our time to reach 2400 in AC time - but few PBEMs ever last that long anyway)

But not every faction is as efficient as the Hive and the Drones, with units on "automatic" as their movement has been planned for a few turns and five-deep build queues. And a couple of factions have time zone coverages from GMT - 8 to GMT + 10, so getting concensus can sometimes be difficult.

I have no problem with the 1-faction / 1-vote concept, if that concept is endorsed by a 1-participant / 1- vote majority decision

G.

[Snowflake]

I see all these polls are informative but not enforcive until Googliegod makes them into the formal rules. In other words, anybody can make another poll with options about whether the result of these polls should count or be thrown out, and you can make it a poll that one faction only gets one vote. Again, this poll would be informative for Googlie in his decision of the rules but not in itself binding.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Googlie
And a couple of factions have time zone coverages from GMT - 8 to GMT + 10, so getting concensus can sometimes be difficult.

This IS a disadvantage for some teams that is outside of their control. I apologize that I didn't thought of that earlier.

[Jamski]

We shall see what people decide, eh? Personally, I've no problem with turns taking a week, but I want to get an "official" system in place to keep things going along.

-Jam

[Drogue]

Also, all 4 at once? Don't some depend on others? I voted 48 hours btw.

[Static Universe]

I voted 48 hours as well. 24 hours just seems to rushed to me. I'd like to be able to make a Hive turn chat for once.

[johndmuller]

This whole issue is quite possibly a tempest in a teapot, as I doubt that Googlie is likely to spoil the game by hammering someone with a major sanction like the turn-complete button unless they are ultra deserving - like they have been completely out of touch and haven't taken turns for 4 or 5 years and whatever guidance they may have left for the Googster has run out and he is getting tired of thinking about / taking care of their faction - no matter what may get decided in these arguably controversial polls. Hey, I live in the District of Columbia, where Taxation without Representation is still in effect (and where other peoples' representatives are free to overrule our own local legislature if they feel like it), so I know a phoney electoral system when I see one - and this one sure smells like a duck.

While the fact that we are working this issue in advance rather than retroactively is a good sign, the fact remains that this is still a decent example of a factional-interest issue. The Hive deplores it's 50% participation rate - I would call that quite high enough to win any election with the help of only 1 other faction. When it gets down to 4 Human factions, it would be an almost sure thing that the Hive and an ally would win every election. We political science types call this sort of thing the "tyranny of the majority", which Jefferson and the other famous US "Democrats" were quite afraid of (and the same kind of thing that is likely to come into play in Iraq) and so they designed in quite a few undemocratic things, like the (originally mostly appointed) Senate, the Electoral College, supermajority requirements etc. . . .

(full disclosure) Being prone to slow play myself (to which Cap'n Flubber and Free Worker Mongoose, among others, would no doubt vigorouslly attest), I can easily see being on the wrong side of any sanctions - but in fact I can see it happening to anyone - and if some teams get small as the game goes on, it will be liklier than ever. The rules being offered here don't have anywhere near the kind of flexibility we will need over the long haul for even your everyday special cases, like major holidays and early stage negotiations when you first meet another faction. Later in the game, there will be key people needing to go out of town or other RL stuff - in regular PBEMs, even in cutthroat 'Where-the-H#ll's-the-Turn' games, people ask for delays all the time (with the expectation of getting them, even if they politiely offer to be temporarily replaced). If we make hard-core rules, we will just be enabling hotheads with a soapbox to jump up and down on - we should be talking about loose guidelines if anything.

And the decision process should protect minority rights better than a straight out majority vote.

Suggestion: The Official dissent of any two factions to a poll necessitates a by-faction roll call vote requiring a majority of factions to pass the measure. (This is simple enough and even works with 4, 3, and 2 factions left in the game)

[Drogue]

I disagree. In these issues, it is nothing to do with which faction you come from. As for the ones that decided the map, they are faction free issues. This is where each person has an equal opinion. If we vote by faction for this, each member of the Hive is valued at less than each Pirate. I agree with the loose guidelines, but voting by faction is only good when it comes to the actual game, not to outside things, such as timings.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by johndmuller
like they have been completely out of touch and haven't taken turns for 4 or 5 years

Sounds a little bit TOO long to me. I wonder if Googliegod or any of us are still around waiting by that time ...

While the fact that we are working this issue in advance rather than retroactively is a good sign, the fact remains that this is still a decent example of a factional-interest issue.

I would think exactly the opposite. Discussing an issue in advance is the best way to avoid any factional-interest so that people can offer their opinions in a more objective manner. In fact in this case the discussion is already a little too late. The best timing is before the game actually starts.

The rules being offered here don't have anywhere near the kind of flexibility we will need over the long haul for even your everyday special cases, like major holidays and early stage negotiations when you first meet another faction. Later in the game, there will be key people needing to go out of town or other RL stuff - in regular PBEMs, even in cutthroat 'Where-the-H#ll's-the-Turn' games, people ask for delays all the time (with the expectation of getting them, even if they politiely offer to be temporarily replaced). If we make hard-core rules, we will just be enabling hotheads with a soapbox to jump up and down on - we should be talking about loose guidelines if anything.

Completely agree. A request for delay with valid reasons should be granted. You offered very good points about what some of the special circumstances are. This is exactly why we need to discuss this issue in advance.

And the decision process should protect minority rights better than a straight out majority vote.

Again, agree.

Suggestion: The Official dissent of any two factions to a poll necessitates a by-faction roll call vote requiring a majority of factions to pass the measure. (This is simple enough and even works with 4, 3, and 2 factions left in the game)

I think this is a good idea. Kind of in the same line with my thought.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Drogue
voting by faction is only good when it comes to the actual game, not to outside things, such as timings.

You said exactly what I want to say. One caveat is that we need to thoroughly discuss an issue before any decision is made, just like what we are doing now.