Announcement

**Meshelic** · November 13, 2002, 06:53

Looks like I'm up first, eh?

I've already stated occasionially in the threads and in our chat that I have leanings towards Diplomatic and Tacticians and shall sign up accordingly.

ahem .....please put me down for Diplomat and Tactician...thanks

**Harovan** · November 13, 2002, 08:40

I'm up for Tactician and Economist.

(That should be militaristic and industrious, and thus, I'm a Chinese

)

**Randolph** · November 13, 2002, 09:01

Two Schools?
If we're each in one school (as I think we should). I'll go with economist.
If we're each going to be in two schools than economist, and tactician.

**FrustratedPoet** · November 13, 2002, 13:42

Randolph, we decided in the chat to have each person in two schools. If we can only choose 1 school each then they will be hardly anybody in each one (since we only have 13 players, and not all of them will be active all the time).

I'd like to be in the Tactical and Economy schools too. My biggest problem in SP Civ is that I never trade often enough of well enough, it's best that I don't act as a diplomat.

**Randolph** · November 13, 2002, 14:58

ahhh the chat (damn connection)

sounds good

**Meshelic** · November 13, 2002, 15:32

Remember that the Chief's from the Schola's in essence should have 3-4 members below him to provide discussion, ideas and advice. That is of course the basis of the schola's in the first place.

**zeit** · November 13, 2002, 19:09

It would seem that politicaly wise no one should pick being a member of only one school, as being a member in two schools means you can vote for leaders on two schools, promote your actions in one school with that of the other and being overall more influencial- However, since i rather being Diplomat than a politician- Sign me up for the Diplomats.

And to quote the wise Sun Tzu, that his compilation of "The art of War" should not only serve as a guide for the tacticians, but also for us the diplomats: "How to achieve that which foils the foe's ploys, and prevents his victory- that is a feat thet commoners cannot understand. Every man can see those tricks i use to triumph, but no man can see that strategy which leads me to victory"

This was written in the context of the basics of ploys and tricks, and this gets to the bottom of it, and makes the Diplomacy school different from the Economist and Tacticans- the first are concerned with analysis and problem definition, the second are with- what is the best course of action to achieve this goal or that goal, and diplomats are the strategists, that make the connection between the two other schools.

That was pretty much philosophical- but it would be interesting to see how this really turns out- will we see different schools have different attitudes in the process of decision making in the inter-school discussion that reflect those differences?

edited: missing word.

**FrustratedPoet** · November 13, 2002, 19:14

good for you zeit!

I was afraid Mesh would be the only diplomat.

we need more than two of you, though. if nobody else comes forward I'll change my choice to give you guys a hand, but I'd rather not as I wasn't joking when I said I was terrible at diplomacy

(

"FP in 'not joking' shocker"

)

**zeit** · November 13, 2002, 19:19

Hey FP, if you join us and suck badly- you could always call yourself FrustratedDiplomat...

**FrustratedPoet** · November 13, 2002, 19:22

Or perhaps ReluctantDiplomat.

**asleepathewheel** · November 13, 2002, 19:22

I'll sign up as:

economist

diplomat

not claiming I'm adept at either, but will help balance groups out :P

**Meshelic** · November 13, 2002, 20:16

Originally posted by zeit
It would seem that politicaly wise no one should pick being a member of only one school, as being a member in two schools means you can vote for leaders on two schools, promote your actions in one school with that of the other and being overall more influencial- However, since i rather being Diplomat than a politician- Sign me up for the Diplomats.

Alright someone to help beef up the diplomatic end!..

But Zeit really you should sign up for another school....it would help you out by giving your vote more impact and help the team out as well. I also think that being a part of a schola that you may not be used to or very good at will help you to learn better through being around other experienced players...

That's one of the reasons I joined Tactician. I'm good in SP tactical things, but haven't done it ever in a Democracy game. So it's new to me but I'd like to see how I can improve my skills.

I'm hoping to learn from this, too! And I hope everyone else learns from this somehow as well...

Originally posted by Zeit
That was pretty much philosophical- but it would be interesting to see how this really turns out- will we see different schools have different attitudes in the process of decision making in the inter-school discussion that reflect those differences?

edited: missing word.

Not sure what you mean but this might help. Seeing as how all the members in this team will be divided into 3 schools of 4 or 5 people each, then if the members of those schools wish to join forces and influence a particular vote then they can, and if that's close to what you mentioned I'm glad you did.

The schools are mostly a learning tool, but also serve as a unique way to elect the ministers; for example : all the guys 'trained' in Diplomacy elect a 'speaker' or 'chief' to represent the foreign ministry, while the remaining 'students' act like his deputies in a way, helping him with jobs, this and that, etc.

As far as schools influencing votes, I'm not sure how that would work out. Since every member is in two schola's (presumably) then the impact of schola's siding with each other or against each other is lessened overall, because everyone in a way has two votes....

this sound right?

**FrustratedPoet** · November 14, 2002, 03:11

Originally posted by Meshelic

But Zeit really you should sign up for another school....

He did. He joined the tactical school, although he called it Strategy. I think that's what he meant.... Zeit?

**zeit** · November 14, 2002, 07:22

Actually i didn't join any other school, what i meant was that the way i see it Diplomats are more aligned towards Strategic thinking, Tacticians are towards tactical thinking and Economists are more into analysis and breaking down a problem to its basic components/varibales. What i might find interesting to observe is: Are our diplomats going to influence more on the startegic part of decision making- What are main goals should be over long periods of time or what is our policy towards pillaging cities for example. Are the representatives of the two other schools will reflect oter approaches towards issues like: the Economists will come with a report regarding corruption and revolts in future occupied cities compared to where we stand or will stand if we sack the cities, all the while the tactician will try to influence in the practical matters, at the field level- how many units we should assign to attack on this city or that city if we plan to sack/keep the city.

Does this make more sense?

Oh, and i rather stick with Diplomacy school, but thank you Meshelic for your encouragement. As you said- schools are for teaching and learning, and as such i don't think i see them as a real decision making bodies, and if they are, i rather concentrate my efforts in one of those, in this case, the Diplomacy.

Announcement

Scholia

Scholia

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment