CoL amendment - Announcing the turn chats 1 week prior to

[GodKing]

POLL DECLARED VOID DUE TO LACK OF DISCUSSION, WHICH IS OCCURING BELOW, SO PLEASE READ ON, AND POST YOUR OPINIONS


OK folks. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the number of turn chats, how often they are occurring, the amount of turns to be played, etc. etc. etc. This poll is for an official change to our code of laws. I am posting this without any pre-poll thread, figuring that it is simple enough to not need much, and that all can happen in this thread.

A turn chat or other method of playing the game will be announced at least 7 days prior to occurring in the appropriate thread. If either the president or vice president and 4 ministers agree, they can play the game with less notice, provided they all post in a new thread the rational behind this change and the time and date of the new chat.

What does this do for us? First, it allows people to plan ahead. Second, it will help avoid confusion among the people and ministers as to when the game is being played. Before anyone says that this is unlikely to occur, please note that it did happen recently. Third, it will cause a temporary slow down and prevent any unscheduled playing from occurring. Fourth, it allows people to voice concerns with a reasonable amount of time for them to be heard.

What this does NOT do is a) limit the number of times the game can be played. As long as it is posted, the game can be played every day of the week, or even multiple times on a single day. b) If something very important is occurring, and a majority of our elected officials (who we trust, else they wouldn't be elected) agree, then they have the ability to play the game without the notice providing they explain to the public why.

Voting choices:

Yes - this means that you like the idea and want to enter it into our code of laws

No - this means that you do NOT like the idea and that AS IT IS WRITEN; it should NOT be entered into our code of laws

Abstain - this is currently (I believe) being discussed in our court system. In this instance, it will have the following meaning: I don't care either way about this poll. Abstains will NOT be used as a no vote. If you do not want this to pass as written, then vote NO. If the number of abstains is equal to or exceeds the number of yes and no votes combined, then the poll will be deemed invalid, and is subject to immediate repolling. If the courts determine a different meaning for abstains in the mean time, this definition shall hold and take precedence for this poll only.


This poll will run 6 days. Please post and discuss below. Thanks.
GK

edit - typo
edit2 - voiding the poll and making this a discussion. (you can still vote if you like )

[jdd2007]

i like it. it makes things crystal clear

[Epistax]

A turn chat or other method of playing the game will be announced at least 7 days prior to occurring in the appropriate thread. If either the president or vice president and 4 ministers agree, they can play the game with less notice, provided they all post in a new thread the rational behind this change and the time and date of the new chat.

This almost gets there but not far enough. Remember, turn chats are for the ministers and P and VP. The quick polls we currently use during chats are always due to a lack of a minister, or the indecisiveness of one. The turnchats should not be based around when most of the public can show up, but when most of the ministers can. With that in mind, however, times should still be posted in advanced, but an entire week is too much.

If an interpretation behind provided they all post in a new thread the rational behind this change and the time and date of the new chat can be explained, however, I might be tempted to agree with the amendment.

[GodKing]

Epistax,

What that says is that for whatever reason, if either the prez or vp (those who play the game) and a significant majority of the ministers (4 is what I propose) wish to play the game, fine let them. For whatever reason. However, they must post saying that they are a) playing the game b) saying when they are playing so that if people can join they may do so and c) stating the rational of why they are violating the 7 day standard.

The rational behind me saying at least 5 public officials must make this is to provent abuse by a couple of individuals. I doubt that that would happen, but it may. And with this system in place, it would give the ministers the flexability they should have to do their job.

Yes, the turnchats should be based more upon when the prez/vp and ministers can make it. However that does not mean that the public should be ignored. This would allow all persons involved ample time to plan their schedules. Remember, many of our citizens are students currently on break. They have a very flexible schedule at this time. Once school starts up again, their schedules will become more fixed. They will need the ability to plan ahead. This will provide that scheduling. 7 days is only one week. Anything less than 7 wouldn't provide as good a scheduling benifit. It shouldn't be a problem to look only 1 week into the future and say - lets meet next thursday.....

[Epistax]

As long as it is not interpreted in a way to make the public rule over the turnchat times, I have no opposition. I will say, however, that all turnchats should have their times scheduled in the Next Turnchat thread ASAP, and there's no reason not to list more than just the next one (guess time).

If we are scheduled to have a turnchat on a friday, and many ministers report thursday is better, and we hold it then, and then it turns out friday is ok between the ministers and p/vp, there should be nothing stopping them from holding one that next day. It would be a nice courtesy to create a post so that no one (be it a citizen or a SMC) doesn't know about the 2nd turnchat.

I also wouldn't want that particular amendment to try to affect situations where a turnchat is interrupted and reconvened. That needs to be handled separately.

ps, remember I'm speaking as an idiot not a judge

[Spiffor]

I also think a whole week is too much in advance. Because problems will arise, many tunchats will be held at a different time than planned, and people will get confused (just remember the first turnchat, which was put 2 hours in advance on the big plan)

4 days seem much more appropriate to me. I hold my vote.

[UnOrthOdOx]

If we are scheduled to have a turnchat on a friday, and many ministers report thursday is better, and we hold it then, and then it turns out friday is ok between the ministers and p/vp, there should be nothing stopping them from holding one that next day. It would be a nice courtesy to create a post so that no one (be it a citizen or a SMC) doesn't know about the 2nd turnchat.
ps, remember I'm speaking as an idiot not a judge

I would be seriously against this. Two days in a row is unreasonable. You are saying the general public should not dictate the chats, fine, but they SHOULD dictate the course of the game as much as possible. Chats played too quickly deprive the public of all say. Polls must last 3 days, with chats played every other day, there is no time for the public. Continue and you will have nothing but ministers left here. It will become a spectator sport for the rest of us.

[Ninot]

this is completely unreasonable

as I stand now, i barely know what im going to be doing an hour from now, never mind a week from now.

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.

as for the quickly playd chats, let me remind you of something

the week we had those 2 chats in a row, there was massive unrest BECAUSE we weren't playing enough chats. people were complaining there was too little to do without actual game developments, and i saw complaints about too many ammendments trying to be passed cuz nothing else was happening.

you have to make up your minds.

the 2days in a row probably wont happen again for a while. that was 1: because of the war, 2: because of complaints

as for this week, it is planned every other day because we may not see very many turnchats in the upcomming week, so we need to get them done sooner or later. Would you rather go 8 solid days without a turnchat, rather than a few bunched togthere when there are no neccesary polls?

[Spiffor]

I'd say a turnchat every 2 days is a tad too fast, but a turnchat every 3 days would be just fine : we"'d have time to debate AND interesting things to speak about.

[Ninot]

Just so everyone knows, i urge everyone to vote NO!!!

oh, i agree completely that every other day is a bit fast. But, say given the current scenario, where from Friday to possibly mid-day Tuesday, I wont be arround, and Timeline can't exactly be counted upon... do you want to go that many days without a turnchat? whats wrong with everyother day then?

and how in tarnation are we supposed to plan a week in advance? give what happened Monday night to me. The evening before a turnchat, my PC fell apart. now what if it was a hardware problem, and it took me a week to fix it?
or, not being of the age where all my decisions are made by myself.. and where i have a job, how am i supposed to make a week-schedule and be confident it will stand intact, without delays?

unreasonable.

[Epistax]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


I would be seriously against this. Two days in a row is unreasonable. You are saying the general public should not dictate the chats, fine, but they SHOULD dictate the course of the game as much as possible. Chats played too quickly deprive the public of all say. Polls must last 3 days, with chats played every other day, there is no time for the public. Continue and you will have nothing but ministers left here. It will become a spectator sport for the rest of us.

It's very likely for any given turnchat to be of no consequence. Maybe only two turns or played, maybe it turns out no turns can be played, maybe our longterm goals go interrupted by anything new, so it would simply be a delay.

I do understand what you're getting at, but it's perfectly possible for a turnchat to be utterly uneventful

[Ninot]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


I would be seriously against this. Two days in a row is unreasonable. You are saying the general public should not dictate the chats, fine, but they SHOULD dictate the course of the game as much as possible. Chats played too quickly deprive the public of all say. Polls must last 3 days, with chats played every other day, there is no time for the public. Continue and you will have nothing but ministers left here. It will become a spectator sport for the rest of us.

IF this ammendment passes, sure you will probably have more than just ministers and President. But the President and Minister will have to have no social life outside of the game as a prerequisite.

oh, and the way Im currently scheduling the turnchats, polling problems is never an issue, because as i decide the schedule on the fly, i can ALWAYS adapt this schedule to any polls currently being run

IF this passes, and i decide i want a turnchat on Friday, and Monday next week.. and someone posts a 4 day poll heavily involving Mondays turnchat on Friday.. then what? we cancel Mondays chat? we ignore the poll?

it just doesnt work.

[Apocalypse]

I don't like it. This can be especially harmful with the school year starting again. Things can come up quickly. It would be wrong to make us wait many extras days automatically if we could just postpone it one day.

[GodKing]

But Ninot, it does work. Would that person of posted a 4-day poll, knowing that it would influence the next chat, if they could foresee that you were scheduling the next chat in 3 days? If so, shame on them. But with you scheduling the chats on the go, they wouldn't have known, therefore shame on you.

UberKruX wasn't at the chat when we took Washington. Why? Because he was confused. This occurred because of the hastily called chat the day before. Look - I am not trying to assign any blame or such. What I want to do is avoid this in the future. In the same chat, because of technical problems, Timeline essentially called it quits. I left, while many others stayed. OK, I am not a minister, so no big deal. But the ministers and others that did stay later for the Polly 4th birthday called for a continuation. Good. I personally am glad that they did. However, there was no notice that this occurred, and I among many others found out after the fact. I could have been there if I had known, and I probably would have been. It is fun to do the chats.

All that this proposed amendment is attempting to do is make it clear to provide notice of the chats, to avoid these situations. Everybody knows that emergencies happen (i.e. your computer). Nothing is proposed to limit you from canceling a chat in the case of an emergency. If a chat has to be rescheduled, that is easily accomplished. Just get the ministers to agree to when the next chat will be (if it is within the next week) and post it. That way all can know. There shouldn't be any problem finding 4 ministers, as there should be that many at the chats anyways. You see, as ministers we trust your judgment. That is why you were elected. If in the judgment of 5 elected persons it is good to play again in an hour; and again the next morning; and again in two days; and whenever; great. You are the ones that need to be at the chats. Also, you must realize that Timeline as VP can assist and do the chat if necessary. The rest of us shouldn't be left out or set aside to be a spectator only. We all should have a say in what is occurring. If we don't know what is going on, and when, how can we participate?

In terms of time, as I stated above, there can be multiple chats scheduled on the same day for all this proposal cares. There are no restrictions on that whatsoever. Nor should there be. Sometimes we might be able to do a chat every day, sometimes only once a week. Fine. Let the game itself dictate how fast it goes. This is only about the notice.

If as it sounds in your posts above that your job is the kind that your schedule changes every week. Fine. Post on Friday (or whenever you get your next schedule) the next 1, 2, 3 or whatever number of chats is to come in the next week. For example, you get your work schedule on Friday. There is a chat on Friday night. You ask in the chat what everybody is doing next week. You come up with 2 days that are good, next Tuesday and next Friday. At that point post the schedule for the next week. End of issue. You have the support of the ministers, who need to be there. But you could also ask a couple of days earlier, knowing that people will work with you and your schedule. You could set a couple of dates that may need to be changed later.

I personally juggle about 50-60 work hours a week; going to grad school at night (minimum of 6 credits a term, with no time off for summer); a house that I live in with only 2 cats, so I have all the yard work, remodeling of the kitchen, general maintenance, etc. none of which can be put off as I am trying to sell the place; a girlfriend/fiancé who wants to see me occasionally; and parents who are in essence handicapped in that they cannot do any yard work, so I have to travel 100 miles every week to mow their lawns, trim hedges, etc.; and I still find time to relax and enjoy coming on the forums, playing a computer game, or whatever. Not as much time as I would like, but still some time. All that I am asking for, and that I think a lot of other people would like, is some assistance in planning our schedules so that we can be here when some of the more interesting things occur; and to have this be in such a manor that we can count on it. Soon, many of our members will have their breaks end and will be going back to school. They will have schedules that will become a little more fixed, in class times and in probable times for work. I have also been told that there are some people that do something social outside of apolyton (how that can be I have no idea ). This will help them also. If enough people feel that the seven days is too much (or too little), please post such with recommendations for different times. If enough people say so, than it shouldn’t be a big thing to change this.

[Kuciwalker]

Heck yes!

*sigh*

Manually add +1 to YES.

[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.