Team Organization

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Many heads > one head. I disagree that putting important strategic options up for a vote will lead to worse strategy than if we let the turnplayers make all the important decisions.

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.

See, I don't have a problem with microing. However, the 'best path', is something that the members as a whole should have an opportunity to vote on. It's not as empirical as 'microing', as the best path relies on hidden information, - we don't know what all the other players are going to be doing and when.

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.

I think wonders, grand strategy levels, general build plans for cities should all be put up to a vote. If you have an opinion on how things should be done, we are all going to take that opinion seriously.

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..

Everyone has their own strengths. We don't fail or succeed with the turnplayer only, we fail and succeed as a team. That's an important distinction. You are right, OUR reputation is on the line, not just yours, and we have an obligation as polytubbies not to put everything on your shoulders.

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.

I may not know much about CivIV. But I do know how to run a successful democracy game. We can do it, and do it well with input from everyone. If BS or CFC chooses to have one player running the show, that is how THEY do it. We are different. Why are we going to follow their lead when we can do what we do best?

And that's why I signed on.

[DNK]

Ben, that's basically what's here: big issues must be voted on by all, and the turnplayers (or captain) can put something up to a vote if he thinks it important or in need of formal consideration. We can adjust what are considered "big issues", but I laid them out clearly in the OP.

Otherwise, the only difference between us seems to be how much time to wait before calling the vote. I think my approach could use more flexibility in that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, that's basically what's here: big issues must be voted on by all, and the turnplayers (or captain) can put something up to a vote if he thinks it important or in need of formal consideration. We can adjust what are considered "big issues", but I laid them out clearly in the OP.

I'm happy with cali and mxprox having the ability to table whatever votes they feel should be made. But not with giving them a veto. They get the same as everyone else. One vote.

Otherwise, the only difference between us seems to be how much time to wait before calling the vote. I think my approach could use more flexibility in that.

Well, we have 24 hours between turns, if I read that correctly. I think the ability to delay another 24 hours if the vote is within 2 will alleviate the concerns of Dinner and some of the others over responsiveness, while at the same time keeping things moving.

I think this is going to be very fun!

[Hercules]

I believe we are getting there. The combination of Ben's and Mzprox's approach is about right.

I favour Ben's idea of 'statutory polls' initiated by the turnplayer or Team captain, on some issues every 10? 20? turns, maybe a longer interval at the start, reducing at a later period.
That also should include team positions. In team Merlot, ASH the teams non voting administator, held a secret poll every 30? turns on the King. Team members PMed nominations and then team members pmed their votes. ( I'll check precise method). Ash announced who won and who voted for who.

The essence of democracy is that you can change Government every so often.You don't have to but you have the chance.

In team Merlot (a monarchy approach) despite initial enthusiasm interest waned. There was not a lot for members to do.

We all backed Indiansmoke as turnplayer King but as the game progressed Slaze was voted King.

Also we need an agreed procedure for unlocking deadlock within the 24 / 48 hr time period. A bit like the chairman's casting vote.

[Dinner]

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.

I agree but the grand strategy should be spelled out and the guy who wants that grand strategy should have to advocate why it's the best and why we should all follow it. No dictatorial "I've decided I want this grand strategy, I have veto power, you need 2/3rds to over rule me so [thumbs nose]." If your strategy is good then spelling it out and I'm sure most people will support it. The only reason not to have real democracy is if you think you can't justify your strategy or clearly explain why it is better which is a really bad reason to have a veto or a weighted vote or bull**** super majority requirements.

I honestly don't think there will be all that many votes as long as someone says what they want to do (before they do it) and explain why so that people can comment and make alternative suggestions (with reasons why they think the alternative might be better). I agree with the patient with each other part but vetos and super majority requires make that a lot more difficult.

[Calanthian]

I don't think we need veto's: I am confident we can resolve everything on arguments and votes..



> On kings: I am also fine with voting for a king.

PS. That could also give real flavour to the stories we tell:
we can get kings from the Proxian, Calanthian, Ozzian, Kenobian, Herculean etc. dynasties




> On our start up:
what I intend to do is the following (if we have enough time during the first turn):

remake the part of the map we see, (so we get a test game which is exactly the same as the map were playing) and then each of us can test his build strategies..

Based on that we can decide on our opening moves.

[Hercules]

Some further points. 'Ministers' should be able to initiate polls in areas of their responsibilty.

And 4?( currently 25%) 8? currently 50%) members should be able to call for a poll on issues. The respective leader, captain, minister with responsibility for the issue should launch the poll within a reasonable time.

If unclear it should be team captains responsibilty.

[Dinner]

I have no problem with the turn player micromanaging which tiles the pops are working in each city (though I would like them to tell us what he's doing and why) but there should be some discussion about what to build and why as well as where to move various units and why. If you want XYZ because your experience says it is best then explain that and allow other people to comment or maybe add alternative options. As Ben said this is the Apolyton team so lets act like it is a real team and not a monarch with followers.

We know some people are better at certain things so I don't doubt that their opinions on topics where they have subject matter expertise will be given deference but they should have to explain what they're doing and why so the rest of us can learn as well as offer alternative ideas which the team as a whole can evaluate.

[Calanthian]

I have no problem with the turn player micromanaging which tiles the pops are working in each city (though I would like them to tell us what he's doing and why) but there should be some discussion about what to build and why as well as where to move various units and why. If you want XYZ because your experience says it is best then explain that and allow other people to comment or maybe add alternative options.

No prob

[OzzyKP]

I have no problem with the turn player micromanaging which tiles the pops are working in each city (though I would like them to tell us what he's doing and why) but there should be some discussion about what to build and why as well as where to move various units and why. If you want XYZ because your experience says it is best then explain that and allow other people to comment or maybe add alternative options. As Ben said this is the Apolyton team so lets act like it is a real team and not a monarch with followers.

We know some people are better at certain things so I don't doubt that their opinions on topics where they have subject matter expertise will be given deference but they should have to explain what they're doing and why so the rest of us can learn as well as offer alternative ideas which the team as a whole can evaluate.

This is what we've been saying all along. You seem to be the only on the team thinking this is going to be a "monarch with followers".

[Dinner]

Some further points. 'Ministers' should be able to initiate polls in areas of their responsibilty.

And 4?( currently 25%) 8? currently 50%) members should be able to call for a poll on issues. The respective leader, captain, minister with responsibility for the issue should launch the poll within a reasonable time.

If unclear it should be team captains responsibilty.

I like these ideas.

[Dinner]

This is what we've been saying all along. You seem to be the only on the team thinking this is going to be a "monarch with followers".

Then we're on the same page and we won't be having things like weighted votes, vetos, or super majority requirements? Good, now we can continue with suggestions like Hercules' and Calanthian's. I'm glad we cleared that up.

[DNK]

I'm fine with doing away with the vetoes altogether since no one else is really speaking up for them.

You guys want statutory votes every X turns? On what? General approach? I do not understand what we'd be voting on there. There IS statutory voting already for "big issues". If you want to add something else to it, go for it, but I feel like saying "we should vote on SOMETHING every 15 turns" is pointless formality. Despite my verbosity, I tried to avoid unnecessary formality where possible. I expect that under the OP we'd have actually very little of it day-to-day.

Also, the turnplayers already are expected to call votes from time to time on difficult issues. I don't understand why people keep asking for things I've already included in this framework (well, there's an obvious answer).

Dinner, I don't know how many times I need to explain that the supermajority requirements are NOT for typical votes of any sort... The only time they're needed are for vote timer extensions and changing chairs/turnplayers. If you like, we can switch that to a simple majority. I'm not sure it makes much difference.

Dinner, NO ONE has ever really gone against this since we started this forum. This has always been the expectation, at least for me (and I think other posters have said as much):

As Ben said this is the Apolyton team so lets act like it is a real team and not a monarch with followers.

We know some people are better at certain things so I don't doubt that their opinions on topics where they have subject matter expertise will be given deference but they should have to explain what they're doing and why so the rest of us can learn as well as offer alternative ideas which the team as a whole can evaluate.

How do you get a "monarch" with this organization? Your hyperbole is not serving anyone but yourself.

Do remember we're building a team in this thread, and I would appreciate it as such if you would respect my efforts and position in this thread enough to at least represent them accurately.

[Robert]

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.

As far as I can see this forum has no moderators, but perhaps mods of the main forums are also mods of the child forums. I'm looking into it.

[Calanthian]

Here is the evidence