Is it just me?

[Theseus]

While I appreciate the huge efforts being made, especially by Nathan, this is not how I imagined a team demo game would be played.

There have recently been four major topics of discussion:
* Our relationship with Vox
* The border concept
* How best to achieve the growth / techs / contacts we want
* Whether to build GWs at this time, and which

I do believe or feel like we have reached ANY KIND OF CONSENSUS on these issues, and yet both our in-game and out-of-game actions are being directed as if:
* We'll be entering into a long-term alliance with Vox
* APPROVING of their settling lands that we want
* Techs will be a result of our relationship with Vox and building the GL
* Uh, answered above

Hey, maybe I'm just the f-cking co-Master of the Spartan Academy, but I do not agree with ANY OF THE ABOVE!! And I'm pretty sure Arrian feels much the same (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, bud).

And to the extent that in the process we have exposed our thinking to Vox as much as we have, and that to dramatically change our posture now could be taken as a lack of good faith, I feel backed into a corner.

I know everyone has the best intentions. But it is inappropriate to take actions that go so far beyond the team's will... there are exceptions, of course, when certain immediate issues / actions must be addressed by whoever is playing the turn, but I do not believe that any of these major, strategic decisions fall into that category.

So, one, we need some better ground-rules for what people can and should be doing in- and out-of-game while fundamental strategy is still being resolved, and two, a mechanism for strategy resolution (including those issues currently being discussed).

(sorry, I've got a dinner tonight so I won;t be able to respond to responses till later this evening)

[Harovan]

It is not just you, Theseus. Something has to be corrected in our process of decision finding. Perhaps we should outline a few rules, what a single person on what position can decide, and what needs to be discussed. At the moment, we try to find a consensus in our discussions here. I also don't always agree, see my vehement resistance on the wonder project.

Theseus, you're in no way "just the f-cking co-Master" of your academy. Your voice and your opinion is highly appreciated. But nobody can consider your opinion, if you don't state it on a regular basis. I know, that you have time issues and Arrian too, so I try to take most of your daily work (placing and directing military units) on my shoulders. That's not a big deal (yet) and I can do it easily. But on other, basic decisions, I often miss your (and Arrians) voice.

Our economists do an amazing job, and their work on our growth and research is outstanding. But they are economists, and for my taste often neglect on the military. I try to replace the voice of the leader of the Tacticians. Ask Nathan and DeepO, how often I demanded military research instead of a civil beeline for Map Making, and how often I complained, that our defense is paper thin. They're probably already tired to hear it. I'm a mere member of the Spartan Academy, and would really like some help from its leaders. State your opinion, Theseus. You will be heard, I guarantee you.

[asleepathewheel]

theseus-

I agree with you on some points.

Not to whine (too much), but personally, I feel like most every post I've made on this forum has been either ignored or marginalized.

For the most part I am content to let those that know more about things handle those things. On the other hand, I would like to feel more like a member of the team. Not all of my posts are stupid or pointless.

While I have agreed with some of what has been done, It seems like others' views have been largely ignored. I agree that this needs to change.

I would rather us go down in flames than only have 3 out of the 20 registered members make the decisions.

For those members that can't check the board all the time, perhaps we should utilize the mail list to notify people of important decisions?

[Dominae]

I for one read everyone's posts, and attempt to make my own opinions clear. Still I've felt that some things are moving a little too quickly, without adequate discussion and consensus. Therefore, I propose the following:

Whenever an important decision is to be made, either by Sir Ralph, Nathan, nye or whoever is calling the plays, there must be a "pre-poll" to determine if the idea is even slightly debatable. This informal poll lasts one or two days maximum, and must be included either in a new thread, or within an often-read thread (for example, the 'Turn' threads or the Vox comments thread). If just one member expresses concern about the given issue, an official poll must be called.

A "pre-poll" looks like this:

>Sir Ralph: We need to focus on defense and growth instead of Wonders. I call a pre-poll on this issue.

>Dominae: I disagree; the Great Library will help us tremendously.

Obviously pre-polls should not be called for every new option, but only those things that are 1) important, and 2) debatable.

So, to take a recent example, consider the border agreement negotiations with Vox. Although most people at the chat thought this was acceptable, at least two members (myself and Theseus...among others, I just remember us as being the most vocal about it) explicitly stated that we did not think it was a good idea. Thus an official poll needed to called immediately.

Yes, this may slow down decisions within the team. Then again, it will make us more efficient in the long run (not to mention less prone to bickering). I also propose that it is the scholia leaders' responsibility to ensure a distant enouh "look ahead" plan is done, such that we're not stuck making decisions on the fly. The diplomats need to figure what we're doing with Vox. Based on this decision, the economists make their decisions. And based on these decisions, the tactician's make theirs. Let's not fall into chaos here.

What do you all think?


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Unfortunately, we are under some time constraints. It will not always be possible to allow for polling periods on all major decisions.

That is why each school has a leader. That is why we have a player/president. The leaders of the schools agree? Great. They cannot agree, or they are absent? Then the player must have some decision making ability.

This is a tricky business. Take the 'friendship with Vox' issue. Based on discussions, we should make clear to Vox that the diplomat(s) favour it, and that for now we will act on that, but that the final decision will require a period of time to be arrived at. So, we tell them 'yes, but subject to ratification'. That way everyone can have a say, and the game can progress.

[nbarclay]

It's not the situations where we have time for a day or two of prepoll, a discussion, and then a vote that get us in trouble. The idea of a border treaty was something of a special case because there seemed to be a consensus for (or at least not objecting to) discussing the matter with Vox, but now that we've seen the risk that a consensus of people at a particular place and time may pass over others who aren't there and have strong objections, we ought to be able to avoid similar problems in the future in all but emergency situations.

The Great Library discussion is going pretty much the way things should, aside from the fact that DeepO posted his poll too early in the discussion for it to make sense as a final, binding poll (at least in my opinion). We aren't committed to anything yet, and there's still time for additional people to contribute if they so desire.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

I think the same is true of the border treaty, Nathan. The entire coversation with Vox was carried out with the precondition that it was you discussing with Vox, not binding on GS as a whole.

Now, we should proceed to discuss the merits of both a border treaty and friendship with them. I agree with you that we should have a broder treaty, and that we should be friendly with Vox, however we must accept that there are 18 (or so) other members of the team.

[Theseus]

I'm glad I didn't upset anybody...

I liked what nye said, and sort of forgot that that was the original idea: at a minimum, the leaders of the scholia should agree on major strategic issues.

And yes, where possible, we need to be little more deliberate, and a little more inclusive. Whether it's a pre-poll, a poll, whatever, I think most of us are experienced enough to know when an issue is major, and therefore it is incumbent upon us not to make decisions without consensus.

Sir Ralph, as to my participation, I haven't had the time to hammer away at these issues that I would like... but I do think that I have commented on just about everything, and have maintained a pretty consistent stance throughout. I will re-state my main thoughts in the current turn thread.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Unfortunately, we are under some time constraints. It will not always be possible to allow for polling periods on all major decisions.

True.

That is why each school has a leader. That is why we have a player/president. The leaders of the schools agree? Great. They cannot agree, or they are absent? Then the player must have some decision making ability.

As I understand it, "decision-making ability" is only within the confines of a particular turn. If, for instance, Vox moves a Warrior closer to our city, the leader should definitely react to the best of his or her judgement if no quick counsel is available.

But "decision-making ability" should not include: 1) the proposal of a border agreement, 2) the declaration of war, 3) the proposal of an alliance, etc., basically any diplomatic decision that affects the course of the game in a major way. The whole point of having a team is so that many players can have their input; if one or two players are exercising their "decision-making ability" at every turn, there's no point in having a team.

I believe my proposal makes sense. It addresses the fact that there are time constraints, but it also addresses the fact that many members want to feel they're part of the decisions.

Here's a hypothetical scenario that might sound familiar: I, Dominae, ambassador to LI, organize an informal chat, whereby I propose and sign deals to: 1) not attack LI in the near-future, 2) enter a tech-trading partnership, 3) draft military plans to attack Vox and 4) enter a Worker-for-gold exchange (why not). Would the members of GS not be surprised if I came back and posted a list of my "results", and expected everyone to just accept them? I think we've got to have a bit more communication than this.

Nathan's efforts are exemplary, and will surely lead us to victory. But as "special envoy to Vox", head of the Economic scholia, and player of the turns, I'm afraid he's playing the game all by himself. This would be weird even if we all agree with his decisions. But there have been strong reactions against a lot of them. Saying we're "time-constrained" avoids the issue altogether.

This is a tricky business. Take the 'friendship with Vox' issue. Based on discussions, we should make clear to Vox that the diplomat(s) favour it,

Who is the head diplomat? Nathan? If not, I suggest we get a better grasp of who the diplomats are, and precisely what they favour. Perhaps a poll would do the trick (no joke).

So, we tell them 'yes, but subject to ratification'. That way everyone can have a say, and the game can progress.

I agree. The problem is that many of the decisions we're making are not compatible with a "subject to ratification" clause. You do not jump in to lifelong alliance overnight. The border agreement is a fine idea to get Vox to calm down. But when we start taking their interests into consideration because they're such good friends, we're crossing the line.

Do we really think that Vox will be good partner?


Dominae

[Dominae]

Cross-posted with a lot of you. I too think the GL debate is going as it should, and I'm confident we're getting back on track.

I guess my real problem is that, unless you say something like: "remember, these is just an INFORMAL chat and does not reflect the feeling of GS as a whole" to Vox at every opportunity, a lot of what goes on in "informal" chats is actually quite formal (quite simply, because this is a game, and there's no point in being truly formal in the first place). So although some people might think that things are proceeding "informally" in diplomatic discussions, I can make a pretty good case that this is untrue. Vox probably thinks the border issue is more or less resolved, and our whole team is considering a Wonder-proposal which implicitly involves a strong partnership with Vox. But both these things are supposed to be "informal" at this point.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

I guess my real problem is that, unless you say something like: "remember, these is just an INFORMAL chat and does not reflect the feeling of GS as a whole" to Vox at every opportunity, a lot of what goes on in "informal" chats is actually quite formal (quite simply, because this is a game, and there's no point in being truly formal in the first place). So although some people might think that things are proceeding "informally" in diplomatic discussions, I can make a pretty good case that this is untrue. Vox probably thinks the border issue is more or less resolved, and our whole team is considering a Wonder-proposal which implicitly involves a strong partnership with Vox. But both these things are supposed to be "informal" at this point.

I tried to make it clear repeatedly that the border treaty was subject to ratification and that I wasn't sure whether GS would go for what we came up with or not.

[Dominae]

Hm, that's not the impression I got from my two reads of the chat, but maybe Vox got the message. We'll have to see what their reaction is when we reject the deal in its current form (if we decide to do so, of course). As Vox, I would feel more than a little put out if GS proposed to grant me land in the name of peace (however informally) then retracted the offer a couple of turns later.

By the way, Nathan, I have not been able to find any hard evidence on the forums that any of the Voxians knew WCs cannot go through Jungle tiles. I guess I just find it hard to believe we're playing against players who do not know this (although I myself thought Marketplaces were half-price for Commercial civs until just a few months ago!). So my strong comments about not trusting Vox based on this issue are out of place. I still think they're opportunistic, but they're probably not liars (in the game, of course).

Finally, please try not to take my comments conerning your actions to heart. I'm very glad you're on this team, and am impressed at how much you think things through. I just hope I've made my point without causing unecessary friction.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Hey Dom, don;t feel bad... we all keep learning.

But to not know the capabilities / limitations of your immediate and only neighbor's "tier one" UU?

Anyway, I'm glad everybody's being very cool about some GS introspection... done right, and given all of our excellent capabilities, we will rock.

[DeepO]

First comment first: Asleep, don't for a minute think that your comments aren't read, or are ignored. I try to read everything, but it's not possible to comment to everything. Sometimes, there is no need to, as a simple sharing of opinion doesn't require anyone to answer. Or, if I agree with something someone has said, but it's not the biggest insight we had all day, I won't post that I agree.

You're right in that we need to keep track of all opinions, and starting the GL poll and the 'what kind of treaty'poll was done in the hope we could get a better idea of the views of everyone, and not just those with most time to participate in all discussions. If the poll was to fast, because it hasn't been fully discussed, sorry, but it wasn't really a final poll yet, but more something to feel the mood of the team.

Dominae: we need to better define what a function can do, and what is not allowed. So far, I don't think there were many problems. As said before, I think ambassadors need to have the right to work on proposals for deals, if they clearly state that it's not final, and after a proposal is okayed by the two ambassadors it gets ratified by the teams. If we don't do it like that, we won't get anywhere in time, already now each deal is taking us days, sometimes a week or more.

The heads should be responsible for taking very small, urgent decisions, and if the members vote equal, his vote will count double. Other then this, he hasn't got any more right or privileges, and his task is only to keep an eye on things so nothing gets forgotten (e.g. economic head has to know when the chops end), and to channel the discussions, as a kind of moderator.

We do have a problem here, with the diplo head. Meshelic doesn't have the time needed for the job, so we should need to appoint an interim diplo head. I oppose Nathan for the job, not because I don't think he's diplomatic enough, but because one person should not keep two managing positions, and I wouldn't want to miss him on the economic trone. I said before I don't want the job, I can't make promises on my availability. Normally, I can check the forum every evening and around lunch, but that's no guarantee, sometimes I'm out of the running for a few days. So if anyone else of the Diplo scholia wants to come forward: please do, otherwise I think I will try the best I can to do it, but under the strict rules that the moment anyone wants the job he's welcome to take it. But we do need some kind leader of the diplos fast, as quite a few of the discussions are a bit too chaotic.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, before I forgot, it's normal if you have people with different ideas, and different agendas that some discussions will erupt, certainly along the lines of the diplomats <--> tacticians. Good discussions are nice and learnful, and as long as nobody starts to whine or call the other names, we should do fine. So it's good to see opinions like the starting post here, and even if I don't agree at all (hey, I'm a diplomat ), I like reading it... I feel that you can't hurt anyone feelings by voicing what you need to have said, as long as its done in a polite, and considering way.

DeepO