Elective Positions and Division of Authority once we have Republic.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

We are reaching the point where we need to start dividing up tasks and authority.

The original play called for each member to have a Kingdom City they called the shots on.

Do we still want to do this and how to we want to divide up the cities (Imperial City and the surrounding camps were to be the Imperial Area and under the authority of the elected Emperor).

Perhaps we should have those who are going to be the most active and available assume cities first, I would like the Emperor to be given authority to create orders if any are not submitted by the Ruler of a citystate to prevent a slow down in gameplay.

[Panzer32]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67575

maybe we should look at this government stuff again, and try to get a workable version of it made. I'm going to write up a version of the old structure that I like, and think might be feasable.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Here's something along the lines of what we had discussed earlier:

Each city represents the fiefdom of the member in charge of it.
That ruler has sovereign rule over the fiefdom, sets the land worked, the build queu, etc. For war the Emperor-High King requires all rulers to provide x amount of troops for the war. The troops should be named after their Liege Lord then we can tell whose troops server better, etc.

Foreign Diplomacy should be coordinated by a central Minister with Ambassadors based on what the Minister considers to be necessary.

The Emperor can appoint a Chancellor to assist in duties such an Domestic Minsitery/Gameplay etc, if he feels it is necessary although most of this will fall onto the local Liegelords.

Basically the Emperor is our elected President like the Holy Roman Emperor of the German Empire, and the Chancellor would be our Vice President.

[Panzer32]

My optimal version of the government structure

Citizens

A. Emperor

1. Plays the game.
2. Must appoint Consuls (described in Article I-B).
   a. Consul of Foreign Affairs. Required.
   b. Consul of War. Required.
   c. Consul of Internal Affairs. Required.
   d. Others as needed.
   e. Orders of all Consuls within the boundaries of their officies must be followed by the Emperor.
3. Appoints Lords and Kings as Governors of cities.
   a. Each Lord who wants a city must be granted one before Kings, who already have a city, are granted another.
   b. Must prioritize the requests of Lords over Kings.
4. Acts as King for all cities not assigned to someone else and the Capitol.
   - Exception in case of Article I-A8.
5. Controls all settlers.
6. Production and Queues Powers.
   a. May override Production and Queues during turnchats (if they ever happen).
   - Must inform populus of what he did and why he did it.
   b. May ask for changes during PBEM style of play.
   - May call for a no-con vote if the King refuses.
7. Votes in House of Kings only with the Capitol and cities that are actually his.

B. Consuls

1. Either a King or Lord.
   - A person can hold only one position of Consul at a time, unless there is not enough active people to fill all Consul positions.
   - The Emperor cannot hold a Consul position.
2. Appointment to any postition of Consul must be approved by the House of Lords.
3. Orders of all Consuls within the boundaries of their office must be followed by the Emperor.
4. If the people do not agree with a Consul's decisions, a no-con vote may be called
5. Consul of Foreign Affairs.
   a. May propose trade deals with foreign Human Civs.
   - Has the last word on whether a deal is decided on or not.
6. Consul of War.
   a. Has control of all units besides settlers and workers.
   b. May request governors to change/add military builds.
7. Consul of Internal Affairs.
   a. Controls all workers and slaves.
   b. Has power over the slider
   c. Controls the Treasury
8. Other Consuls may be apointed as the Emperor needs them.
9. No Consul may order the Emperor to go to war.
10. Any additional Consul appointed by an Emperor is removed from the position and not replaced when the appointing Emperor is removed from power.

C. Kings

1. Lords who have been given a city/cities.
   - All Subsequent cities given to a King must have a common border.
2. Names their city (and geographical areas in city radius) with 50% approval from House of Lords.
3. Controls workforce of their city.
4. Controls build and queue of their city, with input from Consuls.
5. Votes in the House of Lords.
6. Votes in the House of Kings.
7. It is the Kings responsibility to name the units their city produces.

D. Lords

1. Members of our team.
2. Votes in the House of Lords.
3. Votes in the House of Kings.

Government

A. House of Lords

1. Composed of all Kings and Lords.
2. One vote for each member.
3. Votes on political issues.

B. House of Kings

1. Composed of all Kings.
2. One vote plus one for each population point in city/cities controled by King.
3. Kingless cities are not represented.
4. Votes on economic issues.

C. Vote of No-Confidence

1. A vote of no-confidence can be called against the Emperor or a Consul
2. The Vote of No-confidence must be a poll with the first post saying and only saying "I propose a vote of no confidence on _ to be replaced with _.
3. In the case of more than one proposed replacement, the end of the sentance will be "... no confidence on _ to be replaced with _ or _".
4. The House of Lords votes in a no-con vote.
5. A no-con vote poll must be open for at least 48 hours.

Please read and comment so that we can get organized on this subject.

[Master Zen]

Well, first of all we have to umm, change the titles . I don't recall there being Emperors in Republics.

I like the structure with the only major critique that the House of Kings would be redundant, let's just have one parliament with all members.

As for the titles, we can be a sort of Constitutional Monarchy like England, since well, a warmongering civilization needs someone with more panache than a Prime Minister.

Therefore we could be led by a King. The Consuls would remain. Kings would become Lords, and Lords would become Senators.

[Panzer32]

ok - the titles are remnants of when the team was forming, way back in the beginning.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Actually, the Holy Roman Emperor of the German Republic was elected.

[Panzer32]

My optimal version of the government structure II

I changed the wording to make it more republic-like; also removed the former "house of Kings".

Citizens

A. Prime Consul

1. Plays the game.
2. Must appoint Consuls (described in Article I-B).
   a. Consul of Foreign Affairs. Required.
   b. Consul of War. Required.
   c. Consul of Internal Affairs. Required.
   d. Others as needed.
   e. Orders of all Consuls within the boundaries of their officies must be followed by the Emperor.
3. Appoints Lords and Senators as Governors of cities.
   a. Each Senator who wants a city must be granted one before Lords, who already have a city, are granted another.
   b. Must prioritize the requests of Senators over Lords.
4. Acts as Lord for all cities not assigned to someone else and the Capitol.
   - Exception in case of Article I-A8.
5. Controls all settlers.
6. Production and Queues Powers.
   a. May override Production and Queues during turnchats (if they ever happen).
   - Must inform populus of what he did and why he did it.
   b. May ask for changes during PBEM style of play.
   - May call for a no-con vote if the Lord refuses.

B. Consuls

1. Either a Lord or a Senator.
   - A person can hold only one position of Consul at a time, unless there is not enough active people to fill all Consul positions.
   - The Prime Consul cannot hold a Consul position.
2. Appointment to any postition of Consul must be approved by the Senate.
3. Orders of all Consuls within the boundaries of their office must be followed by the Prime Consul.
4. If the people do not agree with a Consul's decisions, a no-con vote may be called
5. Consul of Foreign Affairs.
   a. May propose trade deals with foreign Human Civs.
   - Has the last word on whether a deal is decided on or not.
6. Consul of War.
   a. Has control of all units besides settlers and workers.
   b. May request governors to change/add military builds.
7. Consul of Internal Affairs.
   a. Controls all workers and slaves.
   b. Has power over the slider
   c. Controls the Treasury
8. Other Consuls may be apointed as the Prime Consul needs them.
9. No Consul may order the Prime Consul to go to war.
10. Any additional Consul appointed by an Prime Consul is removed from the position and not replaced when the appointing Prime Consul is removed from power.

C. Lords

1. Senators who have been given a city/cities.
   - All Subsequent cities given to a King must have a common border.
2. Names their city (and geographical areas in city radius) with 50% approval from the Senate.
3. Controls workforce of their city.
4. Controls build and queue of their city, with input from Consuls.
5. Votes in the Senate.
6. It is the Lord's responsibility to name the units their city produces.

D. Senators

1. Members of our team.
2. Votes in the Senate.

Government

A. Senate

1. Composed of all Kings and Lords.
2. One vote for each member.
3. Votes on important issues and no-confidence votes.

B. Vote of No-Confidence

1. A vote of no-confidence can be called against the Prime Consul or a Consul
2. The Vote of No-confidence must be a poll with the first post saying and only saying "I propose a vote of no confidence on _ to be replaced with _.
3. In the case of more than one proposed replacement, the end of the sentance will be "... no confidence on _ to be replaced with _ or _".
4. The Senate votes in a no-con vote.
5. A no-con vote poll must be open for at least 48 hours.

Please comment on any changes you want made, preferably without using the rolleyes smiley

[Master Zen]

Everything is sweet except I don't like the name "Prime Consul"... if anything we should change it to Prime Minister and Consuls to Ministers.

BTW, usless there's a vote of no-confidence there won't be a change of leadership right? Perhaps it would be best if we set up say 30-turn terms since we probably will be a republic for a long time. A vote of no-confidence would only serve to split up the team and thus should only be used if the current leader or consul screws up big time.

[Donegeal]

This topic came up when the document was originally drafted (as well as the name of the positions :resisturgetouserolleyes: ). The idea of a "length of term" or a "term limit" was dismissed as the No-Con has almost no restrictions. If the leader of our team is doing a good job (such as ours is and has been) then why put him through the grinder every so often just for the sake of "doing what right". The way it is set up currently, if you are unhappy with how things are being done, then you can call a No-Con on anybody in an official position at any time. In the ISDG, we changed the name of the No-Con to a Change of Command (or CoC as you saw over there already). This simple thing of renaming the vote seemed to satisfy most of the people who had qualms over it.

Now I admit that when I wrote this document up, the active members of our team eagerly envisioned a country of internal strife where one king tried to gain power through deceit bribery (based off GF idea of a mini-game) and militarily (through my long forgotten unit devision proposal) over other kings in an effort to control the empire. This document allows for this, but it also allows for us to continue to operate as we have been. We have to admit, we have been operating extremely well and have excelled fanasticly going as we have. We have been striving to get to the point where we can play a feudal system like it was designed but we have encountered one problem with this idea. We all get along fabulously. I think we can go ahead and proceed with our current government and let each active member have a city and just see if the feudal system happens on its own (which I dout it will, unless Uber starts to come back).

We are not the Role Play Team. I do not believe it was are intention to role play government type. Now I admit that this would be a good deal of fun, I feel that we are having tremendous amounts of fun playing as we are. If we want to start RPing, then we can stick to our guns and go feudal with the mini-game and the whole works. We can play kings of citystates trying to work together to dominate the world.

Back to the topic of names.
This has seemed to be a sticking point with a number of people (initially GF and Unortho having issues with having both High Kings and Emperors and now MZ and Panzer seemingly unhappy with them). Let us look to who we are and what we are susposed to represent in this game. Lets indeed even look at our name, The Glory of War. What would be wrong with assigning names to positions based on Military rank structure (I am only familier with US Army rank structure). It could go something like this:
General (this would be the leader, the guy who plays the game)
Colenol (this would be the Consuls or Ministers)
Major (City Kings)
Captian (Lords)

Now obviously, this would not be a true military structure (just in title only) as there is no way a Colenol is going to be able to tell a General what to do as would be the case with our Government, so this idea is not perfect. In reality, I am not sure there was a government like ours. In this case, we could have the titles be something completely new, derive titles from root words like Impellor (root word Impel: to drive or force). I know that that example is similar to Emperor, but it is just an example. We are smart people, we can come up with something.

[Master Zen]

I like your ideas donegeal

Being the Glory of War means we should forget about those wussy democratic names and find more impressive sounding titles. I think a military-style system is the best for our militant nature but perhaps we should get a little more creative and think of some stuff ourselves

I was thinking perhaps on the line of some eclectic titles like "Great Leader" for our supreme ruler. Our CoFA can be the "Grand Chancellor", the CoIA can be the "Lord Protector" and the CoW the "General of the Armies" or something like that.

As for changing the leader, I am too new to know how things have gone before. I am glad to hear our team has been working great and I see no reason why it shouldn't in the future. Why change something that's doing fine?

Also, let's hope that even though we are the GoW, let's get rid of that idea of bribery and deceit to take control. That will contribute nothing to our ultimate objective which is WORLD DOMINATION. We are facing tough challangers and a team which fights amongst itself as much as it fights others will get nowhere. Let's save our deceit towards the other teams

(glad to know this hasn't been happening though...but just in case )

[Master Zen]

Some other ideas for titles: "Governor" or "Viceroy" for those who rule over a city and just "Lord" for everyone else.

How about "Representative of the Great Banana on Earth" for our supreme ruler??

[Donegeal]

We are heathens here in the Glory. We have abondoned the banana and worship the grapes that produce our Victory Wines! (we have a monopoly on alchohal you know)

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Dammit, I like the idea of using the titles and pattern of the German Confederacy and being a group of kingdoms united into an imperial war machine. I think Prussia best represents our concept historically. Which is why I prefer using the title Emperor (the medieval elected overlord) or Kaiser (the industrial title). Then using Chancellor for the Vice and Duke for members and Minister for the other postitions.

When we started I thought it was widely agreed upon that we each wanted a city to represent our holdings, although I am not married to the idea of individual holdings. I do like the idea of appointing a General to lead each individual campaign versus a single Minister of War. Then we can have prospective candidates submit battle plans and the presenter of the best play is authorized to lead the force into battle.

[Donegeal]

Whoa there big guy! I don't think anyone wanted to change how our government was designed (might have wanted a little exlpaination). Mostly the discussion has focused around titles. It just asthetics (or however you spell it). Personally I don't care what the titles are so long as the document and powers don't change. You could give me the title of "Garbage Mouse" so long as it gives me a city (or two ).

The Military ranking thing was just a suggestion (hey, look, you could be a General). The titles wouldn't mean anything like they traditionally do.

Personally, giving each person a city to manage (and a possible start to the mini-game) I think will increase the activity of most of our lurkers, and it is the only thing that I would want to add. So far we have really been going at this sorta hapazardly and not really following close to the document and it has been working great! I would bet that we are the number one or number two threat according to any of the other teams, but NO ONE want to either a) tangle with us militarily, or b) tick us off as friends. We are pretty much everyones worst enemy and best friend all in one. Reguardless of what the F11 says, or what the score says, we are winning this game. And it is because we have been able to let ourselves adapt to what ever situation appears that we are doing so. I like our document. I think it is very well written (hell, I wrote most of it myself) but lets not hamstring ourselves by following it to the letter now. Once we get going in the mini-game and CityKings become the norm, then yes, we may need to follow it more so than we have been, but lets wait until we need that beauracracy to keep things organized.