Team Organization

[OzzyKP]

Does Sommerswerd still have access to this forum???

He shouldn't. But that is a question for Robert.

[Calanthian]

He is listed as moderator..

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I know. Robert, Martin and I discussed this when this forum was first created. They said they set it up so that he couldn't access this forum. I have no way of verifying it myself, but I assume Robert/Martin did as they said.

[OzzyKP]

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.

Democracies have constitutions to provide some guidelines. These are just guidelines and structure, they don't take away from the democratic nature of the team. The fact that Obama can veto some bills doesn't mean the US isn't a democracy. I think the structure DNK put down is rather fair and invites formal participation from everyone.

That being said, I imagine in most circumstances we aren't going to use these rules often. I imagine things will be run rather informally. The turn players will do their best to incorporate the best ideas from everyone on the team. We all will have a role to play to help the team to victory. There will be plenty of discussion for each turn, nothing in these rules implies that everyone on the team won't be discussing, debating, testing, and arguing for ideas on every turn. I imagine in most circumstances we'll simply each a consensus and it won't be a big deal.

In the small number of instances where we have strong opinions on multiple sides of a decision it is helpful to have a formal process in place to deal with it. DNK took a reasonable stab at that. If you think his proposal should be changed, by all means make some suggestions. Ultimately though we are going to have to delegate some decisions to the turn players. It will be wildly impractical for the entire team to take a vote over every movement of a scout and decision over which city tile to work.

[OzzyKP]

Also, I'm not interested in the storyteller position. I can make graphics now and then, and help out here and there, but I don't want to be responsible for writing stories.

[Hercules]

The proposed organisation could work if we had a team of say 40 or even 30 plus but not with our current total registered members of around 15.

Generally I am like Dinner in favour of a simple majority process but I worry about infrequent members posting. I would be in favour of the designated turnplayer having an extra say.

But issues regarding War and Peace for our team need a clear procedure that reflects regular poster input.

Also we need a way of dealing with sickness/absence/holidays. And timelimits for voting.

[Dinner]

If you think his proposal should be changed, by all means make some suggestions. Ultimately though we are going to have to delegate some decisions to the turn players. It will be wildly impractical for the entire team to take a vote over every movement of a scout and decision over which city tile to work.

Just have the person playing say what they want to do, if no one objects they get to do it, if there is a disagreement then have people vote on it after everyone has explained why. There is no need for super majorities or vetos at all.

[DNK]

The fact is we're mostly relying on the turnplayers to run an economy that they are experienced with. Fact is that mzprox and Cal are the two best economic players we have at Apolyton; certainly they're a class above myself. mzprox seems to have some dark magic he uses.

I'd prefer we didn't call a vote every time there's a disagreement between us and them because there will be plenty of small disagreements over all sorts of things - techs to take, units to produce, even tiles to improve/work, build priorities. I mean, we start calling votes for all of that stuff and it's going to be ridiculous, not only for all of us but especially for the turnplayers. We need to give them some breathing room to do what they know how to do better than most of us.

That doesn't mean we don't discuss things, it doesn't mean we don't change their minds sometimes or help them when they need it or give useful advice or really support them as a team, but if we call a vote it needs to be more than "half of us feel like X, so we'll do X." I think going against the turnplayers needs to require more unanimity than a simple majority of all players because ultimately the economy and civ are their strategies with our input and advice, so I weighted it.

That said, they will disagree among themselves, and if they can't resolve it through discussion (with the team also), we have a mechanism that they or the captain can use that still gives them a more significant say than others (because they called the vote to resolve their own issues) but lets the team as a whole choose the ultimate outcome. If we have 10-15 members, with maybe 3 department heads, then we have 19-24 votes total if all participate. Each turnplayer or captain only has about 15% of the vote (and at least 2 of them are disagreeing), the heads only 10% each.

Note that it's the captain's responsibility (Ozzy ) to keep the team together and in harmony and active, so if he feels that there's a serious disagreement among non-turnplayers or real dissension in the ranks, it's his job to call a vote. So, if you feel an issue isn't being taken seriously enough, he's the guy to go to in order to make it a formal vote.

The veto isn't expected to be used regularly because ultimately these votes are for the turnplayers to use to settle their own serious disagreements in veto cases. I assume they won't go vetoing willy-nilly in the case they call a vote then.

I think perhaps we should change the wording all the same. Now, a veto can only work if both turnplayers use theirs, this way it's only a "half veto" actually, and the captain doesn't have one anymore.


And if you want to call a vote as a team member, then there's the (C) vote without vetoes or weighted votes, so everyone has an equal vote. You need 2/3rds of members to create a vote, not to decide - that's just a simple majority.

[DNK]

Hercules:

I don't know how to weight this any better really to give more votes to players with more dedication to the game. I don't think it's fair to the turnplayers or captain or heads, who have all dedicated a ton of time and effort into playing this for our team, to give them only the same vote as someone dedicating no more than 20min a week to it. The turnplayers and heads are going to be spending hours a week on this game by mid-game...

All votes are carried by a simple (weighted) majority. Only time extensions and reassigning heads/TPers require a supermajority (to avoid abusing the mechanic).

In the "long version" the rules for time limits are explained, but usually it's 48 hours for a vote.

Absences can be handled fairly fluidly without formality, but if need be there are also parts in the "long version" to handle reassigning department heads (I think I'll need to add something for a TPer, an oversight).

[OzzyKP]

Note that it's the captain's responsibility (Ozzy ) to keep the team together and in harmony and active, so if he feels that there's a serious disagreement among non-turnplayers or real dissension in the ranks, it's his job to call a vote. So, if you feel an issue isn't being taken seriously enough, he's the guy to go to in order to make it a formal vote.

I will ensure no one is left out and that all viewpoints are considered. My goal is to keep this team together so we can win! If anyone feels left out, or that their contributions aren't being valued, please come to me and I'll see what I can do. Again, as I said, the rules are there for when we need them, but I'm sure that in most cases we'll just discuss things together as a team and there won't be much friction or disagreement.

I approve of DNK's changes to restrict the veto. There will be very, very, very few instances where I would call a vote to try and overturn a decision that Cal & Mz are united on, so I highly doubt it'd ever come up.

[Dinner]

The fact is we're mostly relying on the turnplayers to run an economy that they are experienced with. Fact is that mzprox and Cal are the two best economic players we have at Apolyton; certainly they're a class above myself. mzprox seems to have some dark magic he uses.

I'd prefer we didn't call a vote every time there's a disagreement between us and them because there will be plenty of small disagreements over all sorts of things - techs to take, units to produce, even tiles to improve/work, build priorities.

Then your democracy game isn't much of a democracy and I have to wonder what is the point to the rest of us being here? Let them say what they're going to do and why and if anyone has an objection then we can discuss it and hold a vote if it remains contentious. Anything else is not a democracy game in my book.

I believe you were complaining about there will only be three players left by the end; well, if you run it like a SP game that the rest of us are just watching instead of taking an active part in then, yeah, most other people will lose interest and leave. So let's put the democracy in the democracy game so it stays interesting and engaging for all of us.

[Calanthian]

Let's not discuss each others motivation to death

I am pretty confident we can make this interesting for all involved. And all good suggestions, play analysis etc. etc are welcome!

There will be cases that someone has to guard the grand strategy, there will be cases that everything is open for discussion, but lets wait until they arrive. It is good that DNK set some guidelines for making descisions, and I get that Dinner does want to have a say in things.

I am confident we can achieve both, if we are patient with each other.

[DNK]

Suit yourself. I'm still open to discussing this, but it seems you're against the basic idea of not having 100% democracy, so I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[mzprox]

This is a democracy game but also an inter-site contest so our reputation is at stake . You can be sure that every team will optimize their gameplay and that would mean that only the top tier players would have word in it. Some are happy to be only a lurker, but here everyone who wants can involve himself as much as he likes.
What I will do mostly is microing, you can be sure that if we can get ahead a single hammer or commerce I will rearrange the city's working tiles every turn. I will also run several testgames in worldbuilder to choose the best path. Everyone who likes to do this can do these mirror games then we compare them and decide which one to use after that the turn player will just copy those moves.
On the medium level, to decide on what to build, especially wonders, what to research can be put on debate, but not necessarily
The grand strategy level, how to expand, whether we prepare for war or build peacefully, what are our main goals (working towards certain wonders) etc will be up to votes.
At war someone with good experience in civ warfare can take over the commander position, but again everyone is welcome to offer strategies. Tricking the enemy quite often the key for victory, so cunning plans are welcome.

Besides these we need a very strong diplomacy department. I'm for example not very good in that because I prefer fair fights. Experience shows however that it's better to be part in a 3vs1 alliance and after killing that single one be prepared to choose one ally and kill the next one etc..

We also need thoose who like to analyse our opponents. Someone linked a page where there are various techniqes how to gather information from graphs and demographics screen.

And then we can write stroies, glorious reports, prepare nice pictures etc.

And lastly I think this game will be educational. Those who are more experienced will explain what they do and why so here you can learn the little secrets, one more reason to be here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Generally I am like Dinner in favour of a simple majority process but I worry about infrequent members posting. I would be in favour of the designated turnplayer having an extra say.

I was a demogame president. What we agreed to do was whenever an 'important decision' came up, where either the strategy, or after a certain period of time, whomever was actually playing the game would put it up to a vote as to what direction the nation would go.

Voting issues was left to the discretion of the turn player. Pretty much all of the large strategic decisions were put up to the players to decide.

Here's my counterproposal:

Whomever is the turnplayer has the right to 'table' bills for voting and discussion, and after a set length of time, (say 10 turns), he will post the polls for discussion and voting.

24 hours from poll start to poll close.

Voting will be 50 percent plus one. Close votes (within 2), can be extended for another 24 hours).

Things which should be discussed, tech paths. Initial build strategies, negotiations and relations with fellow teams, general direction of expansion etc. I think the turnplayers would have good judgment to assess important strategic choices when the arise and put them up for a vote here.

Given how the previous votes have gone, I don't think a veto is necessary.