Starting all over: Structure ?

[Hercules]

Starting all over: Structure ?

This thread is to determine our structure or lack of it. In the 54 forum we saw ourselves as a loose bunch of hackers.

But we do need some order.

For instance:

we will need to confirm how we appoint the turnplayer. Should we adapt agent JohnDMullers proposal.

Elections and nominations for first turnplayer

we need to appoint a chief tech researcher or do we? Our research tech thread

An Ambassador (less urgent)

Our Factions PR agent - Newsletter publisher

Our micro management thread

Our recruitment publicity: Urgent

Our Welcome thread.

When we reach agreement on key topics I will top the threads.

[Kody]

I wonder if it's okay if I can read you old forums?

[Hercules]

JohnDMuller's post:Copied from our private forum and to which there was general agreement.

Re: Something about turnplayer and/or faction leader description


Regarding the length of time each person served as turn player, I think we were theoretically going for 10-turn terms, but at the very beginning (I was the first) there wasn't much to do (after planting the initial bases, it was mostly waiting for things to get built). At the beginning, we were still feeling our way in the basic stuff, like how to circulate the turn files and how long to allow for feedback, etc., and I don't think we were stable enough to go through a reorganization so soon. And so it seemed reasonable to continue for a second term, as otherwise one would see nothing through to completion; as it was, it took that long to get our first built from scratch base planted. I suspect Herc felt the same way during his stint, as he was also interested in continuing for a second 10 years. By then, tradition had it that a term was 20 years. Little did we know that we were destined for little more than 3 terms; if we did know more, we would have changed other things besides the term limits.

It would make sense to have a sliding scale, say 20 years for the first term, 15 for the next two, and 10 from then on. By the time we got to the third turn player, there might be enough to do to keep 2 people busy, say both internal (base and terraforming) and external (exploration and adventurism) managers.

[GeoModder]

I'm in favor of JohnDMuller's proposal, since the 'workload' isn't that high in early game. As for the turnplayer and the other future responsabilities, election is the way to go IMHO.

[Enigma_Nova]

I'm skeptical, but I'll go with this for now.

I tend not to play until I see the turn first-hand, so I can't plan until I see the turn first-hand.

I fear that a turnplayer will go ahead and play the turn without the advice of his teammates - that's my biggest gripe with an appointed turnplayer; that they're the ones making the decisions instead of the team.

[Hercules]

No the advice is sought and welcomed. In the early turns I imagine several of us will be available to discuss the early moves.
If need be on line with mirc or something but personnally I am lousey with that. Meaning I can contribute to the discussion but my system may not allow for speedy interaction and keeping the turn open at the same time.

[Hercules]

Enigma: Though you might not think it we have a number of Data Angel potential sign ups who are very interested in the micro game.

[AdamTG02]

I think it should be monthly rather than a set number of turns. That's how it was done in the first ACDG, and it worked fairly well.

As for structure, we need a method of officer appointment and removal. Since only the turnplayer is really a *necessary* position, let's decide on that first.

I see it as vital that we have a mechanism in place to remove a turnplayer who is not following the majority decisions. So how about majority vote with runoffs to elect, and a supermajority (Somewhere from 3/5 to 2/3) to de-elect before the term is up.

The reason for the runoffs is that if we simply go by the person with the largest number of votes, that person might not get a majority. Therefore, we should have runoffs if no candidate gets a majority.

My proposal for the runoffs is this: The top two (including any ties for second place) run against each other, or if the top two don't have a majority between them, the top three. If the combined votes for the top three still don't make a majority, the top four are polled, and so on.

Does this make sense to everyone?

[Enigma_Nova]

Works fine for me.

[Kody]

Can be also be appointed an honorary title... or two.

[Enigma_Nova]

You mean an RP title.
I tend to stay away from RP. <_<

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
You mean an RP title.
I tend to stay away from RP. <_<

Uh-oh...

[Kody]

Trithemius, hey don't worry. One good thing is that roleplay and game strategy can work seperately in this DG. Also this game there's two narrators. Although Honghu seems to be a little busy right now.

At the moment holding of starting some of the roleplay stuff so the turnplayers can get organised and settled down.

[Trithemius]

Originally posted by Kody
Trithemius, hey don't worry. One good thing is that roleplay and game strategy can work seperately in this DG. Also this game there's two narrators. Although Honghu seems to be a little busy right now.

At the moment holding of starting some of the roleplay stuff so the turnplayers can get organised and settled down.

Okay, but I hope that RP is going to weighted as highly as mechanical concerns. It's a pity when we all seem to end up playing different games.

[Enigma_Nova]

You know that my strength lies in playing the turns and planning the turns.
Already I'm setting up the first turnchat - IRC based as far as I can tell.