Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Team Organization

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Team Organization

    Edited June 20th


    TEAM ORGANIZATION

    "Top 3" Leadership
    - Team Captain (OzzyKP)
    - Turn Player (TP) 1 (Calanthian)
    - Turn Player (TP) A (mzprox)

    Departments and Ministers/Secretaries/Directors
    - Armed Forecs (???): Figures out strategies, unit production, promotions, and may take over during war.
    - Intel Ops (DNK): does all sorts of sneaky -legal- information gathering and analysis. In charge of spies and ESP spending as well.
    - Foreign Relations (Robert Plomp): handles diplomacy and trades and such.
    - Historian/Story Telling (???): keeps copies of stuff, makes a history, makes story posts
    - Domestic Planning (???): ASSISTANT for turnplayers

    Subordinates and Other Team Members
    - Each department has any number of assistants, ambassadors, deputies, or whathaveyou that the head chooses.


    VOTING

    Types of votes
    A) Mandatory (DoWs, treaties, unit trades, civic switches)
    B) Brought up by either the Captain or the TPs together
    C) Brought up by any department head regarding something in his "jurisdiction"
    D) Brought forward by petition of >50% of active members

    Voting Rules
    All votes, the persons calling the vote will set the deadline. No vote may be less than 48 hours, and 2 weeks is suggested as the outer limit. The voting is open from the start until the end of the deadline, where it automatically closes. Once set, the deadline may not be altered by the person calling the vote, but rather by a >50% majority of active members. No deadline may be shortened to less than 24 hours from the time of alteration. Votes may be changed by any team member at any time, and only the current vote at the time of closure is final.

    For (A), (B), and (C), the votes are carried by a simple majority of weighted votes. For vote weighting, the "top 3" each have 3 votes, each department head has 2 votes, and every other member has 1 vote. A player has the most votes possible by position, but it is not cumulative.

    For (D), the votes are carried by a simple majority of unweighted votes.

    When a vote is called, a new thread will be made as such:
    VOTE [closure date]: SUBJECT/NAME
    For example:
    VOTE [Jan 1st, 12:03]: War against Carthage?

    A note of the new vote will also be put in the main organization thread. Once the closure date and time are met, the thread shall be locked and the votes counted, then posted by a forum moderator in a final post, and in the organization thread.


    ABSENCES and REASSIGNMENTS

    Any department head may alter his subordinates at any time as is his wont.

    Any department head or member of the "top 3" can be altered or removed at any time by calling a vote. Such a vote may be called by 2 of the "top 3" or by a >50% petition. The votes must be open for at least 1 week, and they are carried by a simple majority of all active members without weighting for position (regardless of who called the vote).

    If a member is absent without response for over 1 week, a temporary sub should be found. This sub may be appointed with a simple majority of weighted votes. If the member remains absent for another 2 weeks without response or without reasonable excuse or expectation of return, a permanent sub may be elected. The rules for electing a permanent sub (to any position, including "top 3") are through a simple majority of weighted votes.

    The method of election for temporary or permanent subs rests in the hands of the Captain. Run-off or multiple-vote elections are valid, as are any typical of a democratic system. If the Captain is the absent one, then the TPs will choose the method, else a "1 vote per candidate" model will be used, as in the US typically (though no colleges).

  • #2
    Note: this is my idea and not decided upon. This is all open for discussion. I am just trying to get the ball rolling. Perhaps a simple democratic simple-majority system will work best, or perhaps a dual-dictatorship between the turnplayers with everyone else just acting as an adviser will. Complexity can suck sometimes

    Comment


    • #3
      I'll volunteer to do foreign relations.
      I love the negotiating, the ass kissing, the subtile insulting and the in your face ***** slapping!
      Formerly known as "CyberShy"
      Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

      Comment


      • #4
        I'll be happy to do domestic planning together with mzprox.
        But of course we'll be open to any suggestions > it is a team game after all.

        In a related topic: I guess we need a civ which goes along with the "delayed REX" scenario.
        As that is close to the playing style both mz and me are exponents of. >> I'll continue on this topic in the right topic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Uhhh, Cal, the domestic planner is your assistant

          Comment


          • #6
            [Edited into OP]

            Comment


            • #7
              Everyone will have the opportunity to "play the game". After we decided on our first build (most likely worker) and first tech and after a bit exploring we will set up a world builder scenario and we can try out different approaches (best build order, fastest way to achieve certain goals etc.). Everyone is welcome to do his own version(s) and we can discuss it. It will be educational too.
              Not counting on unexpected events (diplomacy war etc we will have our path set to several turns which we can redesign if we see necessary.

              Comment


              • #8
                Agreed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  By "micromanagement will be left to the turnplayers' discretion", I meant that we wouldn't vote on it unless asked to. I'm certainly open to getting a bit into the micro, at least in the opening, but that's not really proscribed or anything by this.

                  Cal: agreed to mzprox?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yep, and to you as well

                    I am in a generous mood today


                    (not so sure I am in the same state of mind this evening, as Holland is playing Germany..)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, if not this then what? I tried to make something along the lines of what I expected to happen without a formal organization (top 3 players sort of run things and we discuss and advise as needed) along with a formal voting mechanism for when this unorganized approach breaks down. I feel like maybe people think this will make every turn a serious, formal affair, but it's really just an attempt to structure difference resolution before we get to that point, plus adding a few things (eg mandatory votes, popular votes, departments and such) to keep up participation and interaction with non-playing members more. That necessarily comes with some complexity, but I tend to overdo it I suppose

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mzprox View Post
                        Everyone will have the opportunity to "play the game". After we decided on our first build (most likely worker) and first tech and after a bit exploring we will set up a world builder scenario and we can try out different approaches (best build order, fastest way to achieve certain goals etc.). Everyone is welcome to do his own version(s) and we can discuss it. It will be educational too.
                        Not counting on unexpected events (diplomacy war etc we will have our path set to several turns which we can redesign if we see necessary.
                        WRT our first build. Isn't it better to wait until the city is pop 2 before building a worker? I mean it will take half the time to build at pop 2 as pop 1 so effectively we could get a warrior and a worker built in the same time it takes to just build a worker at a pop 1 city.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                          WRT our first build. Isn't it better to wait until the city is pop 2 before building a worker? I mean it will take half the time to build at pop 2 as pop 1 so effectively we could get a warrior and a worker built in the same time it takes to just build a worker at a pop 1 city.
                          It doesn't work that way. a pop 2 city will get to work on an other tile which is 99% of the time gives 3 production (food+hammer combined) and the new pop uses up 2 food so actually the production towards the worker increases only by one ( from the original 4-5) so you can finish the worker 20-25% faster only, but the impowed tiles give much better result. you can test it and see how it works.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Does Sommerswerd still have access to this forum???

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I honestly don't know why we need such complicated rules especially with the 2/3rds majority garbage. Weren't you the one complaining that we'd only be left with just three players a year from now? Well, I think these rules pretty much assure that of happening since it really only lets three people play and veto anything other people want to do so what would be the point of the rest of us being here?

                              The game should be organized in a more democratic way imo.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X