 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
 |
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cavebear
Monk -
First, I should mention that the "cool" smiley  at the end of my posts is a sort of signature (a personal joke that I have to wear glasses to see the computer screen), not a comment. You had no way of knowing that, and I now realize that the smiley could be misinterpreted.
Second, the "wink" smiley  was not meant to be sarcastic; I guess it should have been a regular smile.
Third, if I made some errors in play, you are right to point them out. I do not take that personally, nor were my comments to you meant in that way. I followed the various Ministerial recommendations as well as I could collect them and as closely as I could. There were some conflicting desires (that's normal). We want Settlers for new cities, but we also want our cities to grow large enough to celebrate them to size 8. We want enough gold at one time to rush infrastucture, but we also want to keep our gold below 50. We want Caravels to explore, but we also want them busy carrying Caravans for gold and beakers. I'm sure you would have played out the recommendations differently, as would anyone else. That's OK, too. 
Fourth, I don't think I criticized your polls. I thought they were good ones. 
Fifth, You are quite correct that I should have spent down our gold faster and that the Gunpowder would have cost us less. I wish I had. That was a mistake. 
Sixth, I hope your last sentence doesn't mean you are leaving. I said I was impressed and I meant it.
Now, let's take the situation as it stands and go on from there. If starting the Colosseums in so many cities was a mistake, help me get us out of it. Perhaps some of them should be switched to Barracks. Perhaps there are other solutions.
|
Thank you for the clarification, especially about the smilies. They seemed very in my face.
And what I meant when I said I did not understand (and still do not) is how it is okay to use as a predicate for some decision, a course of action specifically rejected by a Poll. That's why I used the word blatant. Is this okay?? And if so, why have polls at all?? And please don't take this as a challenge; I really do not understand. Also, I'm NOT referring to differences in game style or choices.
Why should I not conclude from this that the President is allowed to do whatever he wants and then justify his actions later with excuses that fly in the face of the polls?? I know I have, essentially, asked this question three times now with varying degrees of pointedness, and if I have gone too far, I am sorry, but I really don't understand all this excuse making when you (at least to me) clearly did something opposite to the vote of the people.
Monk
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
But I think the area that Bloody Monk refers to is the area between Utica and Kildeer which we could explore without going near the Zulus (and i would be happy if we leave the Zulus alone for now). If we explore this area in between, we might find out how far the Egyptian lands extend and maybe where the Sioux are. |
Damn! I do recall discussion about moving the former Salt Caravel along that shore before sending it back to Aploytonia. Sorry about that. I had in mind that our Explorer would do that and forgot the original coastal exploration. Mea Culpa!
I recall that, too, though I wonder how it was known. IIRC, it was because we sighted a Celtic ship heading east through Apolytonia waters.
[/QUOTE]
quote:
And I recall that Bloody Monk used the "Find City" option (for Wonder Cities to determine where the Celts were located).  (While I don't use "Find City" much myself, I am more then happy to use the information obtained by those that do (the reason I don't use it is that I find the results confusing usually) |
I don't use it myself, but I should remember that others do. I will try and remember to get information for us all that way (civ rest my soul).
quote:
One of the reasons I suggested to Bloody Monk that he check out this forum and game is that the General Forum has slowed down lately, and this game needs new members (I actually sent out reminders of the game to several other former players as well) and another reason is that he is a regular poster and not shy about giving opinions  (in the Succession Games at least...I recall being told I needed to "get a pair" at one point I think  ). I look forward to the rest of this month and seeing what next month (and a new cabinet) brings |
I am perfectly willing to admit my errors, take my lumps at my play, and take advice from everyone. Monk is not the first or only assertive participant to grace our democracy games.  I value people who agree with me and I value people who don't. And I especially want someone else to take over as Consul next month! I think Monk is a valued participant, and he has the opportunity to make an impact on our game. I'm glad he is here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
|
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Thank you for the clarification, especially about the smilies. They seemed very in my face. |
If I get "in your face", it will be obvious.  I don't generally do that, though.
quote:
And what I meant when I said I did not understand (and still do not) is how it is okay to use as a predicate for some decision, a course of action specifically rejected by a Poll. That's why I used the word blatant. Is this okay?? And if so, why have polls at all?? And please don't take this as a challenge; I really do not understand. Also, I'm NOT referring to differences in game style or choices. |
All I can say is that I look at all the recommendations and follow them and try to balance the conflicting ones. If you look at the totality of the polls, I followed them pretty closely. There were some I could not (due to conflicting results), and there were probably some that I did not becuase I lost track of them. But I followed the majority of them and made some decisions about the rest. That's my job as Consul.
You seem to be assuming that I willfully went against polled decisions. That is not the case. I welcome your questions, because it gives me an opportunity to explain my game-play. That doesn't mean it is possible to follow all polls and recommendations. I explained some of the conflictions in a previous post. I had hoped that would clarify things.
We can continue fighting about this if you want, but I hope that is not necessary. Let me put this very clearly; your's were not the ONLY recommendations I recieved and some of them were mutually exclusive. I made some choices between conflicting ones.
Can we go forward now?
quote:
Why should I not conclude from this that the President is allowed to do whatever he wants and then justify his actions later with excuses that fly in the face of the polls?? I know I have, essentially, asked this question three times now with varying degrees of pointedness, and if I have gone too far, I am sorry, but I really don't understand all this excuse making when you (at least to me) clearly did something opposite to the vote of the people. |
And I have answered your questions several times. Apparently, apologizing is not enough for you. Nor are explanations of the reasons for my actions. I have explained my actions and errors sufficiently.
Actually, the Consul has great powers of personal decision. We set the governments up that way. As governments become more representative, the leader has less power. The Citizens wanted it that way this time and I have followed their desire. In Despotism, there was no Citizen input. In Monarchy, there was more, but it was limited. In Republic, there is still more.
In spite of that, I choose to TRY to follow the wishes of the Ministers and Citizens, but I am not required to do so. I will state one last time that I do try to follow those wishes and when I do not it is through either error or a change in conditions.
Time to change the subject, comprende'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
Oh, so instead of addressing the singular point why and how it is possible to justify something that a poll said not to do....
You do a dance, give an angry face, and a demand to change the subject.
Since I clearly do not understand the roll of polls and Minister Reports, I feel it would be best for me to step aside and let someone else show me, by example, how it is done. Here I thought it was an impeachable offense to disregard a vote of the people; I clearly do not understand; clearly, I was not qualified for office.
And clearly I have little ability for communication. Never did I ask for an apology, just an explanation...which, til now, I have yet to receive. Nobody voted for that option and you are proud of doing it anyway.
And I don't get it. 
Monk
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Oh, so instead of addressing the singular point why and how it is possible to justify something that a poll said not to do....
You do a dance, give an angry face, and a demand to change the subject.
Since I clearly do not understand the roll of polls and Minister Reports, I feel it would be best for me to step aside and let someone else show me, by example, how it is done. Here I thought it was an impeachable offense to disregard a vote of the people; I clearly do not understand; clearly, I was not qualified for office.
And clearly I have little ability for communication. Never did I ask for an apology, just an explanation...which, til now, I have yet to receive. Nobody voted for that option and you are proud of doing it anyway.
And I don't get it.
Monk |
BM, please! We're getting all upset and we needn't be. Cavey's style of posting has been consistent the 2.5 years I have been involved in the Civ2 DG, and he is not one to try to spite anyone. Please take this on trust. ( = friendly smiley) He has explained himself, and admitted a mistake or two. What more are you asking for?
The Consulship is a hard job to do, especially where there ARE conflicts in what we idiots vote for (when we remember to vote, that is...  . It is natural that the turnplayer has a little leeway when situations come up that are not forseen in polling, and in interpreting conflicting orders. I think cavey generally does a good job at this, far better than me whenever I have been Consul/President/Despot or whatever. But at the same time I know how much work needs to go into polls, and in making the options as careful as possible to try to avoid ambiguities. I applaud you for your recent efforts there - it is clear that having a great strategic knowledge of the game really makes a difference when making up polls, something I sadly lack.
The DG here is still a little bit lead from the top. That's just the result of a game where not EVERYthing can be polled on. The President of the Civ3 DG in its heyday was essentially powerless, as you had extremely detailed Minister polls on every facet of the game and turnchats, where all Ministers and citizens were in chat with you as you played, so there was never anything that was not decided via Democracy. However here, with fewer participants and no real-time discussions as in chat the Consul has to just do their best. If you have an idea how we can improve this then please tell us! I'd certainly be interested.
And finally, if we citizens are unhappy with the job that cavey is doing, then we should let him know, and impeach if and as necessary. So far BM has expressed his displeasure. I ask that anyone else concerned please let us know as well, because this is a serious issue. If there are others worried about having their votes disregarded, then we have a problem to deal with and we'll need to change things. If not, then can we just take it as accepted that most of those who voted do not feel that their voices are not shaping the game?
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cavebear
I'm done with trying to answer the same complaint over and over again...  |
It's not a complaint; it's a question. How can you do something that a poll specifically rejected?? A simple question. Instead of a direct answer, you issued forth with masses of words, most of which were about something else entirely, and NONE of them in direct response to my question. Now you may think that forms an answer, but it is merely a response. One repeated statement was that other, unnamed suggestions were preferred by you, but there was nothing about how it is that suggestions--unnamed and unspecified--could trump a poll result.
Now, maybe I went too far in reasking my question in the false hope that you misunderstood the question. But, I still don't see why a direct, straight answer is too much to ask.
quote:
Originally posted by cavebear
On to the next round of polls... |
Why??
Or more to the point, why bother with polls?? Since you put more store in suggestions anyway, doesn't it make sense to dispense with polls?? Just tell everyone what you intend to do, in general terms of course. It would sure save everyone else a lot of time.
Now, I feel sure you will think I am just being sarcastic, but really, I'm just relating how very badly I wish you could have been straight with me.
And with that being said, I too am done with this. Enjoy your game!!
Monk
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Oh, BM. 
I can only assume you have an RL reason to not want your time sucked into the DG at the moment (I often do ), because you're getting strangely worked up over nothing.
Please think about what you're doing. If you don't want to be here 'cos you don't like DGs then OK, but don't leave over something that frankly looks silly. |
That first smiley decodes as shame. Are you saying shame on me?? And that I'm being silly??
For being confused and asking questions?? Silly?? How??
Something happened that makes no sense to me, something that makes this Democracy Game incomprehensible to me and I asked you guys to help me understand. I'm not a troublemaker. I'm not a troll. Yet, my repeated plea for help has been met, for the most part, by silence.
You do remember, I hope, that I've been here less than a month and that I mentioned coming in that all this was new to me. In so many words, everyone welcomed me and reassured me that if I had any questions that you guys would be happy to answer them for me. Well??? Where is everybody?? This is very disappointing to me; I'm the new guy here and I think you folk could have done better by me. If there is shame here, I refuse to accept it as mine.
I have stated my confusion, my questions, and my concern that, until I understand this thing, further posting by me made no sense. I don't want to mess up this game. How do I know if what I think makes sense if I don't understand the game?? That's out of respect for the game; that's out of respect for you folk.
I'm sorry, Sir, but that's not silly of me.
In an ideal world, one of you would have set aside your preconceptions and reread what has been said, listening carefully, and considering things from the viewpoint of a newby. I suspect a lot of this miscommunication is related to the fact that your 2+ years of doing this gives you a "vision" that I just can't fathom. But, I realize that is too much to expect. At this point the game has moved on. That's just the way it is. I DO understand that much.
Monk
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
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
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
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
|
 |
Canada CST
Apr 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
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).
* Sparrowhawk  (puts hand up as guilty as charged)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
|
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
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
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
@ 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
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2004 23:12
|