Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Org]

What should I do first?

Im ten days in, and really just letting them work on the wall. I had Emmanovi stop hunting, so he could do some butchering.

[Hilscher]

What should I do first?

Im ten days in, and really just letting them work on the wall. I had Emmanovi stop hunting, so he could do some butchering.

Make sure you cancel a three cubit wide south exit.

[Lav]

Irrelevant to the current game issues, I motion that holidays should not be used for vote deadline calculations on any dwarf's prior request. This matters for me - while I'm online on most holidays, sometimes I'm out of town from Friday evening and until Monday morning - effectively 2.5 full days.

Regarding the current game issues, I support the community decisions.

2Goron. Actually you can use Mayday's graphics set but you cannot use Mayday's tileset. Tilesets replace many basic symbols and some of them do mess with game text. Mayday's tileset in particular, that's why it comes bundled with alternative game text files and thus becomes a mod.

So just take any tileset that looks fine for you and does not mess up text symbols and then add a graphic pack on top. Make sure they have matching sizes (both 12x8 or 16x16) and everything should be fine.

[Org]

Do I make the southern bridge retractable?

Or what?

[Goron]

Do I make the southern bridge retractable?

Or what?

As it was not specifically stated in the measure, I'd guess you can choose on your own, or, as you are doing, seek advice. I suggest raising bridges, because they create walls to protect from missile attacks.


EDIT: Also, Org, would you please send me a PM when you are finished with the season and post the updates, that way it will go right to my email and I'll hopefully be able to start the process of accepting motions as soon as you finish

[Org]

From the Journal of Org, Treecutter
It seems I have taken over for this season. Hm. Time to get some work done around here.

Moonstone, 23rd
Ha! After months of working, the moat is finally complete!


Moonstone, 26th
After just a few days of finishing the moat, the Great Wall has finally become complete, which almost encircles our entire Dwarf Home! 


We have begun work on a bridge.

Moonstone, 28th
The bridge was completed! However, it seems some dwarf must have misunderstood from the blueprints. He made it a Retracting Bridge. I will have to fix that.



Moonstone, 31st
A month, finished. It seems that time does fly. Ill have to work more, and try to finish an animal pen.

[Goron]

Jeeze, do we still not have a designated bookkeeper eh?
*scribbles some notes down to be sure to move a measure to designate a book keeper*

[Lav]

My suggestions for the next voting.

1. Majority should be calculated based on the number of players, not dwarves. Otherwise we will stuck when we have 10 players and 30 dwarves. Unclaimed dwarves can be considered immigrated non-citizens, those who became interested in the fort and came here to watch and decide for themselves, but haven't yet stated that they really wish to become citizens of Equalvoice.

2. Exploratory mining should be done on the entire map (at least one drill per region, preferably more).

3. I think that defence of Equalvoice is the honourable duty of every citizen, so every dwarf in the fortress should spend one season per year training in martial arts and weapon use. We cannot involuntary draft immigrants because they don't have a player who could agree or disagree with such action. So either we rely on whatever volunteers are found among current players, or we pass a law that will make it everyone's duty.

[Org]

3-Not until later, since we need all the dwarves right now.

[Goron]

(I will keep these motions recorded and present them once the 'designated' time to propose motions comes... which will be as soon as the season is over and the report is presented. then the 24 hour clock will start for motions.)

But, I think we should discuss your first suggestion now, about number of votes necessary to pass a motion. I agree that we should only consider 'active' dwarves for the same reasons you suggest. Since this is not a 'fort specific' issue, and it will have an impact on the coming voting session, I suggest we hold a special vote on this single issue that can be decided outside of normal procedures.

At the moment we have two Dwarves in support of this special motion - to calculate majority based on number of 'players' rather than dwarves. (For: Lav, Goron)

[Emmanovi]

I see what you're saying, Law... hmm. We can't consider them non-citizens, as they help around the place... unless you're suggesting that unclaimed dwarves shouldn't be given any tasks. At least, not drafting them seems reasonable.

A point about majorities, however - a majority vote is only needed for things such as deciding to forcibly cease voting. I'm under the impression that an ordinary motion reaching majority does not automatically succeed, so the definition of majority only really takes an important hold when it is outside of a time limit scenario. Are there any specific advantages for reducing majority to be based on only active dwarves?

My current understanding of the voting system is this:

A motion must first be made by someone, then seconded (within time limits). After this point, the motion will succeed, unless more players vote against it than for it. So a motion can succeed with two votes, the motion and the second, so long as no more than one vote is cast against.

The reason I mentioned majority numbers in the standard voting session was under principle that if a motion reaches this number, a dissenter would have to "convert" those who have already voted aye in order to defeat the motion.

I may, however, be misconstruing the system we have.

[Hilscher]

My suggestions for the next voting.

1. Majority should be calculated based on the number of players, not dwarves. Otherwise we will stuck when we have 10 players and 30 dwarves. Unclaimed dwarves can be considered immigrated non-citizens, those who became interested in the fort and came here to watch and decide for themselves, but haven't yet stated that they really wish to become citizens of Equalvoice.

2. Exploratory mining should be done on the entire map (at least one drill per region, preferably more).

3. I think that defence of Equalvoice is the honourable duty of every citizen, so every dwarf in the fortress should spend one season per year training in martial arts and weapon use. We cannot involuntary draft immigrants because they don't have a player who could agree or disagree with such action. So either we rely on whatever volunteers are found among current players, or we pass a law that will make it everyone's duty.

1.) Absolutely. Non-player dwarves are not citizens. They are dwarves who help out and so are given shelter, drink, food, and the other rights that those who put in work enjoy; they simply don't get to vote because they have not *chosen* to become citizens, and are welcomed to become citizens freely and without restriction. Give us your poor, your hungry, your tired masses yearning to breathe free.

2.) Totally. It probably won't get done in one season, but I'm up for starting it next season.

3.) Mandatory training, voluntary service! No one will be forced to charge into battle against a dragon armed only with a pickaxe, but every able bodied dwarf male and female must spend a season in military training with an axe, pick, or crossbow. NO WRESTLERS. I say we set up the Equalvoice Militia program this spring, with 5 dwarves on duty (standing down and training) in the barracks (first level of the tower). Then cycle them back into the workforce and draft five new recruits. Keep everyone fit with hard work mining and masonry.

Jeeze, do we still not have a designated bookkeeper eh?
*scribbles some notes down to be sure to move a measure to designate a book keeper*

What tasks would our bookkeeper be charged with?

I see what you're saying, Law... hmm. We can't consider them non-citizens, as they help around the place... unless you're suggesting that unclaimed dwarves shouldn't be given any tasks. At least, not drafting them seems reasonable.

A point about majorities, however - a majority vote is only needed for things such as deciding to forcibly cease voting. I'm under the impression that an ordinary motion reaching majority does not automatically succeed, so the definition of majority only really takes an important hold when it is outside of a time limit scenario. Are there any specific advantages for reducing majority to be based on only active dwarves?

My current understanding of the voting system is this:

A motion must first be made by someone, then seconded (within time limits). After this point, the motion will succeed, unless more players vote against it than for it. So a motion can succeed with two votes, the motion and the second, so long as no more than one vote is cast against.

The reason I mentioned majority numbers in the standard voting session was under principle that if a motion reaches this number, a dissenter would have to "convert" those who have already voted aye in order to defeat the motion.

I may, however, be misconstruing the system we have.

That's actually right, except for the majority thing. The Chairdwarf sets reasonable time limits for things. The system we have seems to work well, we're getting a lot more done in a fraction of the time, despite the amount of energy we spend on voting. I think it's clear we have a need for 'special motions,' which the Chairdwarf has the power to allow or deny, wherein pressing issues can be voted on after the time limits for normal motions has passed. To conclude voting, I would say a unanimous vote, defined as no opposition, be required to adjourn. Like we had. A majority vote means nothing by itself, it just means that it will succeed unless someone changes their vote. Just because something achieves a majority doesn't mean it will succeed automatically and end voting on it. People can change their vote up until the last second of the hall meeting. That's my thought process. The Chairdwarf has some power over deciding what is reasonable, and that's why the post exists. We have proven we get nothing done without someone with some shred of authority to guide our process.

EDIT: Perhaps a unanimous majority of citizen dwarves for adjourning? And again, by unanimous I don't mean every single dwarf votes in favor, just that no one is voting against. That could well be a enough to demonstrate reasonable will to adjourn, and an exception to the rule, where a majority being achieved actually does automatically succeed, so that no further waiting would be required.

[Goron]

What tasks would our bookkeeper be charged with?

keeping the books, of course! 
I will propose to have our dwarf most capable with numbers assigned to bookkeeping (whats the labor..? record keeper? book keeper? I forget the exact wordage) at least part time. He/she will count how many of each thing we have. Then write that down. Then update the counts as needed. That way we can achieve a [to be decided] desired level of accuracy in our stocks counts.



Now I will speak about the military service, training, militia, army, etc. discussion:
No mandatory service, no mandatory training. Voluntary only. But, in a time of emergency, I propose the director can draft citizens as a method of crowd control (i.e., draft them in order to make them run into the fort and safety, rather than watch them run away from safety, like often happens...)
I will clarify my position with these three proposals:

• I propose no mandatory training. Citizens must opt-in for training
• I propose no mandatory military service. Citizens must opt-in for participating in the army
• I propose an emergency draft option for crowd control reasons to enable a director to force citizens to comply with proper 'flee to safety' procedures (allow a dwarf to get drafted in order to make them move to a specific location for the purpose of getting them out of harms way)

EDIT: I will clarify my position further:
Non-citizens (non-controlled dwarves) are essentially without rights. THey have chosen not to become citizens, a choice which is free to them at any time at no cost- as such, they do not receive citizen's rights. If, at any time they choose to become citizens (become controlled), they will immediately receive the rights of a citizen.

[Emmanovi]

My preferred way of thinking about these things is to imagine a worst-case situation, or a situation where the system could be abused, or problematic, or misrepresentative.

EDIT: Perhaps a unanimous majority of citizen dwarves for adjourning? And again, by unanimous I don't mean every single dwarf votes in favor, just that no one is voting against. That could well be a enough to demonstrate reasonable will to adjourn, and an exception to the rule, where a majority being achieved actually does automatically succeed, so that no further waiting would be required.

Are you saying that if a majority of citizen dwarves agree to adjourn without anyone disagreeing, voting should cease? That is the thought I had, but without the disagreeing part.

That means, however, that such dissenters would need to voice their disagreement before enough aye votes are collected. Suppose there are seven active dwarves, one person suggests a close to voting, the chairman agrees, then two others voice agreement. The chairman sees this and closes voting. Three others suddenly protest that they were not consulted. If one had them had got in earlier, they could have stopped this - so a time issue is involved. =/

I will clarify my position with these three proposals:

• I propose no mandatory training. Citizens must opt-in for training
• I propose no mandatory military service. Citizens must opt-in for participating in the army
• I propose an emergency draft option for crowd control reasons to enable a director to force citizens to comply with proper 'flee to safety' procedures (allow a dwarf to get drafted in order to make them move to a specific location for the purpose of getting them out of harms way)

EDIT: I will clarify my position further:
Non-citizens (non-controlled dwarves) are essentially without rights. THey have chosen not to become citizens, a choice which is free to them at any time at no cost- as such, they do not receive citizen's rights. If, at any time they choose to become citizens (become controlled), they will immediately receive the rights of a citizen.

This has the capacity for there to be no, or only a couple, of military-trained dwarves, who may not be willing to fight.  I'm quite concerned about this possibility. I prefer the idea of mandatory training, so at least all Dwarves are capable fighters to some degree. It's for their own protection as well, should they be ambushed.

Another point, which won't take effect for some time, regards the position of Sheriff/Captain of the Guard. I feel this position should be one people are elected into, and then remain in until such a time as they are replaced, by a standard motion and vote. However, I feel the Sheriff/Captain should have some degree of control over military matters and justice. I'm not sure about the specifics, maybe being able to organise squads? Or training schedules? Perhaps this ought to be discussed, possibly at a later time.

I concur with the definition of a citizen here. Actually, would it be worth be making a mini-constitution, amendable and so forth, so that everyone can be clear on what is currently seen as the system of rules that apply to everyone is?

[Hilscher]

My preferred way of thinking about these things is to imagine a worst-case situation, or a situation where the system could be abused, or problematic, or misrepresentative.

That's the best way to do it.

EDIT: Perhaps a unanimous majority of citizen dwarves for adjourning? And again, by unanimous I don't mean every single dwarf votes in favor, just that no one is voting against. That could well be a enough to demonstrate reasonable will to adjourn, and an exception to the rule, where a majority being achieved actually does automatically succeed, so that no further waiting would be required.

Are you saying that if a majority of citizen dwarves agree to adjourn without anyone disagreeing, voting should cease? That is the thought I had, but without the disagreeing part.

That means, however, that such dissenters would need to voice their disagreement before enough aye votes are collected. Suppose there are seven active dwarves, one person suggests a close to voting, the chairman agrees, then two others voice agreement. The chairman sees this and closes voting. Three others suddenly protest that they were not consulted. If one had them had got in earlier, they could have stopped this - so a time issue is involved. =/

That's absolutely right, but much better than a simple majority vote wherein even if that dissenter did get there on time, it wouldn't matter anyway. The chairman decides when a reasonable amount of time to voice dissent has gone past, without an arbitrary minimum time window. After all, the whole point of adjourning quickly is to save time.

I concur with the definition of a citizen here. Actually, would it be worth be making a mini-constitution, amendable and so forth, so that everyone can be clear on what is currently seen as the system of rules that apply to everyone is?

Capital idea. Or perhaps a simple charter. Certainly a bill of basic rights which cannot ever be suspended or changed.

For a functioning democracy I think we can all agree with the basic Dwarven rights to speak freely without fear of retribution; and the right to vote anonymously, which presents some problems in and of itself. To ensure democratic participation, a person has to be able to vote anonymously, but how can such a thing be accomplished? Listing unanonymous supporters can reveal the anonymous person(s) by process of elimination, and the person entrusted with the knowledge of the person's identities would have too much power. Google Moderator would have worked if there was a way to make sure only citizens can vote, but there is not, in so far as I can tell. This could be a moot point - perhaps no non-citizens would ever bother to vote, but perhaps they would.

Second are other basic rights such as equal citizenship rights to choice and mobility. No citizen should be forced to fight against their will, or kept from leaving Equalvoice. They are allowed to choose their vocation, place of residence, deity, and weapon of choice without retribution. This presents problems such as our mandatory training proposal. I feel this is a vital facet of our fortress if it is to survive - and not a violation of Dwarven rights as long as they are not forced to fight. Perhaps this should also be written into our charter/constitution as something every new citizen is opting into by virtue of opting into our community, so as not to violate that basic right to choose. A few months of training as part of the service fee to belong to Equalvoice.