Role of the Ministers - the art of decision making

[delmar]

After spending a couple of days in this forum, it dawned on me that I might expect more from the Ministers than what candidates for ministerial posts intend to do.

In order to get a better feel of what "the public" expects from the ministers, I would like to initiate a discussion. For starters, here is what I think:

I believe that the Ministers should be responsible for providing a long-term strategy, outlined to a satisfactory level of detail. I find it difficult to define what is "satisfactory"; if you read the Master Builder Poll thread, you will get an idea what I consider such.

I would also like the Ministers to publish a regular (internal) newsletter say every 20 turns which describes our plans for the next 20 turns and our achievements during the past 20. (The number 20 is an example here.)

Furthermore the Ministers should be responsible for considering and presenting alternatives. Polls should not be posted like "This is what I want, yes or no." Polls should look like:

- Solution 1
- Solution 2
- Solution 3

and the first post in the thread should not be the opinion of the Minister as to which solution he prefers. The first post should be a detailed description of each of the alternatives, with their cost, risks, pros and cons. Consequently the thread with the poll should not be the first thing to appear with regards to a certain issue. There should be a discussion thread to work out these details for the various solutions.

[Spiffor]

Delmar : good ideas, which actually are firm rules in the SP DemoGame. AFAIK the only poll here which wasn't completely neutral was the BW poll. In this poll (which I set up, so I'm the culrpit), I justified the very existence of this poll by the fact someone could hypothetically not agree with the general consensus. Since absolutely nobody voiced opposition to BW by the time I've set up the poll, I expected people to ask "Why post a poll when it's obvious BW is what we want ?".
And, I might have expressed myself poorly in the first post, but I wanted to incite hypotetical opponents to show their disagreement, if only by anonymously voting. Maybe we have shy members who don't want to argue against the general consens, but might vote NO (like the one NO vote regarding the pledge). If I didn't want any debate, I would just have said Jack : "research BW" without referring to the others.

Sorry, but you seem to think this BW poll is a general trend here, and I felt forced to explain the circumstances, because it isn't.

About ministers posting detailed alternatives, comparisons, analyses etc. I highly doubt we'll have this systematically. Don't forget : ministers are player just like any of us, and they might not be able (or not want) to do the huge job you're asking for. If you're willing to do this systematically yourself, please run in next elections, I'm sure no one will dare oppose you

[Jack_www]

why dont you run for a minister spot delmar? You would seem to do a very good job if elected. I really mean it.

[Spiffor]

Ah yes, to reply on topic :
I expect the ministers to :

- give menial orders which are at least 90% of the Demogame, and which don't need any deep dicussion, because they can be considered obvious or unimportant (i.e maximizing shield production once a city got to size 6 for example, and issuing all the orders to do this).

- keep track on their field of speciality. It would be only normal that the Master Builder knows by heart what is built in Port Odin, and in how many turns it's done.

- have a documented advice in every matter of his field, in the reasonable limits we can expect from people who have a real life outside the DemoGame.

- have their orders ready beforehand when possible. They don't have to be ready 20 turns earlier, but a plan is good, because it lets us time to discuss it, and it allows the game to proceed smoothly.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Jack_www
why dont you run for a minister spot delmar? You would seem to do a very good job if elected. I really mean it.

Thanks!

I believe that a Minister should be able to make instinctive decisions that most likely reflect the will of the public. This seems to fly directly in the face of what I am advocating on the Master Builder Poll thread, so let me explain. Even though in an ideal world we should present every alternative and carefully consider every move we make, practically this is not always possible. This means that someone somewhere will make an implied decision without running it through the polling machines. Not because he is not a democrat, but because we are all humans and we make mistakes, and don't realize that we should have asked a question. The only solution for this problem I know is that the people likely to face this challenge (ministers, and especially whoever plays the game) should be a good representative of the majority by nature therefore they should be likely to make a decision that is at least acceptable for the majority.

As I am too new to this group, I am not sure if I would be such a person. (As an example, I would have almost certainly irrigated that cattle. ) If I find later on that my opinions match that of the majority, then I will certainly consider to run for a ministerial post.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Delmar : good ideas, which actually are firm rules in the SP DemoGame. AFAIK the only poll here which wasn't completely neutral was the BW poll. In this poll (which I set up, so I'm the culrpit), I justified the very existence of this poll by the fact someone could hypothetically not agree with the general consensus. Since absolutely nobody voiced opposition to BW by the time I've set up the poll, I expected people to ask "Why post a poll when it's obvious BW is what we want ?".
And, I might have expressed myself poorly in the first post, but I wanted to incite hypotetical opponents to show their disagreement, if only by anonymously voting.

I don't doubt your intentions, and I am glad that you are willing to discuss this topic (the form of presenting polls) at all, and maybe consider my suggestions in the future.

Sorry, but you seem to think this BW poll is a general trend here, and I felt forced to explain the circumstances, because it isn't.

I would say I was afraid that this will become the trend, exactly for the reason you mention below: because this is the most convenient, least effort path. If you think it won't be, then I am happy.

About ministers posting detailed alternatives, comparisons, analyses etc. I highly doubt we'll have this systematically. Don't forget : ministers are player just like any of us, and they might not be able (or not want) to do the huge job you're asking for. If you're willing to do this systematically yourself, please run in next elections, I'm sure no one will dare oppose you

This is another interesting aspect. When I play alone, I don't do all this analysis and consideration: I play by instinct, most of the time. My expectation for this Demo Game (first ever I joined) was that this is different. I thought 18 people should have enough brain power to run through every major thread of possible decisions. I am not so sure now if the majority of these 18 people would sign up for this, or even would like it. I hope I will know more as more people reply to this thread.

However, what you are saying above sounds too similar to "even though we have 18 people, you are the only one who has 20 hours a day to play this game, so go ahead and do it". Well, guess what, I don't have 20 hours a day. I can't and don't want to carry this game on my shoulders, even if the other 17 members voted me into such a position. I feel that at the very minimum, we need the 4 ministers to put considerable effort into the strategy and work together towards a common goal, and ideally we would need another 4-6 people who could occasionally analyse certain aspects. Otherwise, I am afraid, this Democracy Game won't be much different from the instinctive individual playing style.

Ideally, I would like to be one of these aforementioned 4-6 members, see my Golden Age study in the Foreign Affairs Strategy thread.

[vondrack]

Re: Role of the Ministers - the art of decision making

Having my RL business duties finally done for this weekend, I will now do my best to respond even to delmar's rather long posts.

Without quoting anything specific regarding the Ministerial duties, I will try describing my idea of what our Ministers should be responsible for.

Considering the fact that none of our members plays this game as a full time job and none of them gets paid for doing so, we will have to put up with the fact that whatever happens, happens because someone having time volunteers. Once we'd start demanding things like detailed descriptions, we would most probably start running short of volunteers.

Therefore, I suggest we use a minimalistic approach, assigning Ministers duties they would really be able to fulfill on regular basis. Out of my experience, what you suggest, is just too much. Putting together delmar-sized posts detailing every possibility is too costly in terms of time.

I would be just freaking happy if Ministers manage to keep track of things that need our attention, telling us how they intend to proceed. Should anyone prefer a solution different from that of a Minister, he'd submit a counter-proposal, effectively starting a discussion. The Minister would then somehow (perhaps using a poll) find out what majority of the team thinks and act accordingly.

This is not to say, that we shall have no discussion or analysis on long-term strategy. But that should be done by members together... whoever has time enough and feels like doing some research, testing, or simulation, shall do so and tell others about his ideas or findings. Ministers would then use this kind of information while planning their short-term strategy.

I quite strongly oppose the notion to burden Ministers with the duty of providing detailed analysis and long-term plans. Just taking care of the short-term agenda will need lots of their time. Anything beyond that should be voluntary.

Originally posted by delmar
I would also like the Ministers to publish a regular (internal) newsletter say every 20 turns which describes [snip] our achievements during the past 20.

The Chronicle of Legoland thread is supposed to contain the chronological information on what happened in the past, turn by turn. It will hopefully be kept up to date by myself.

Originally posted by delmar
and the first post in the thread should not be the opinion of the Minister as to which solution he prefers. The first post should be a detailed description of each of the alternatives, with their cost, risks, pros and cons. Consequently the thread with the poll should not be the first thing to appear with regards to a certain issue. There should be a discussion thread to work out these details for the various solutions.

Considering the different idea of Ministerial duties I have descibed above, I'd prefer doing it differently. Each Minister should have his own "agenda" thread (this has already been suggested elsewhere and generally accepted as a good idea) to be used to carry out pre-poll discussions. Once options for a poll become somewhat finalized (should it become obvious that a poll is actually needed), the Minister would post the poll, perhaps briefly summing the discussion up in the first post (I do not mind having his opinion/preference mentioned there, not at all...).

Originally posted by Spiffor
- give menial orders which are at least 90% of the Demogame, and which don't need any deep dicussion, because they can be considered obvious or unimportant (i.e maximizing shield production once a city got to size 6 for example, and issuing all the orders to do this).

Good point and nicely put. Still, it would be fine to give a VERY brief summary of intended menial orders in the corresponding "agenda" thread.

Originally posted by Spiffor
- have their orders ready beforehand when possible. They don't have to be ready 20 turns earlier, but a plan is good, because it lets us time to discuss it, and it allows the game to proceed smoothly.

This is vital and we should start working on it NOW. Had I not asked Sharpe, who happened to be the only other member of our team online, to post the where-to-move-our-brand-new-warriror poll (which he quite correctly accompanied by the what-do-we-build-next poll), we would probably have none even now, when the savegame is in my and Jack's mailboxes.

Even if we have just our first warrior, our Military Architect should start taking care of him.

Originally posted by delmar
As I am too new to this group, I am not sure if I would be such a person. (As an example, I would have almost certainly irrigated that cattle. ) If I find later on that my opinions match that of the majority, then I will certainly consider to run for a ministerial post.

Kudos to delmar. A very wise approach, I'd say.

Originally posted by delmar
This is another interesting aspect. When I play alone, I don't do all this analysis and consideration: I play by instinct, most of the time. My expectation for this Demo Game (first ever I joined) was that this is different. I thought 18 people should have enough brain power to run through every major thread of possible decisions.

Brain power? Yes. Time? No.

Originally posted by delmar
Otherwise, I am afraid, this Democracy Game won't be much different from the instinctive individual playing style.

The difference is in the fact that we are able to confront our opinions on real game situations, learning from each other in a bit more attractive way than by reading the strategy forum. I believe that many members joined primarily with this in mind. I did. Winning is, of course, what I will be trying to achieve, but learning and having fun is far more important for me.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- have a documented advice in every matter of his field, in the reasonable limits we can expect from people who have a real life outside the DemoGame.

After careful consideration, I think I don't understand what you mean here (no, not the "real life outside the DemoGame" part ). What does this "documented advice in every matter of his field" mean? Advice for whom? Is this maybe what I call "strategy"?

[Spiffor]

Sorry, it was a rather direct translation from the French word "avis". I simply meant the minister should know what he is talking about, and his words should be backed with figures and thought, in the limits of time we're all bound to.

[delmar]

Tiberius on another thread said:
Reading your comments that we should hold the save for 24 hours only to play with all those numbers to see what is better: mine or irrigate (well, an extreme example, but you get the point) made me think obsesively since then on what is your primary goal with this game: to win or to have fun? I know the obvious answer is both, but if you had to choose, what is your uttlerly most important goal? Because mine is to have fun, to learn and only on the 3rd place comes the winning. If I wanted to win and only to win, I would have joined some other more balanced team, 'cause it is well known that civ3 is more suited for aggresivity than for peaceful building. If the owerwhelming majority of people from this team wants to win by any price, I better play alone at home where I can have fun.

Most of the people seem to want these things in the Demo game: fun, learn, win -- and in this order of importance.

Since fun is apparently very high on everyone's list, perhaps it will be useful to define what "fun" is:

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"


($20 question: who said this?)

I suspect that this is not necessarily a statement that many here would sign up to, nonetheless it brings up an interesting idea. Namely that those ~100 people playing this Democracy Game might not mean exactly the same thing when they say they want to have "fun". At this point I would be tempted to ask what you think fun is, but I assume that you are fed up with me already and after all this is not a philosophy seminar here, so let me just tell you that I personally don't mind if you want to have fun your way, and that my definition of fun doesn't preclude the possibility that I might have to put some effort into having it.

Learning, compared to having fun, is a much simpler matter. I most certainly think that I will learn something here just like I usually learn something from almost anything I do.

As for winning, if it was so very much important to me, then, logically, I should be playing against opponents that I am certain I could defeat, and, logically, I should try to avoid playing in a team where the majority doesn't care much about winning. Based on this, I think I can say that winning is not very important to me (or I am an idiot, which is of course always a possibility ). Nonetheless, if I had a choice, I would certainly prefer winning over losing, and this is why I suggested that we should add a hint into our Constitution that, after exhausting all other possibilities, we even might try to win after all!

Finally, to answer your question: my primary goal with this game is that I have never participated in a democracy game and I want to see what it is like.

And for the record: holding the save game for 24 hours to see what is better, mine or irrigate, is not an extreme example but a very good idea, IMHO!

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by delmar
Finally, to answer your question: my primary goal with this game is that I have never participated in a democracy game and I want to see what it is like.

This is a reason, not a goal.

And for the record: holding the save game for 24 hours to see what is better, mine or irrigate, is not an extreme example but a very good idea, IMHO!

Fun is playing the game. This is a game for christsake, not a math problem. It is absurd IMHO to start a philosophical debate on every single move we make (it isn't fun nor do we have the time to).

[redstar1]

Originally posted by Tiberius

Fun is playing the game. This is a game for christsake, not a math problem. It is absurd IMHO to start a philosophical debate on every single move we make (it isn't fun nor do we have the time to).

Agree wholeheartedly. I've been a member here from pretty much the start and things have gone from 'lets keep it simple' to a full scale debate on what % of th vote we need to allow the VP to pick his nose

Things are getting far too complicated and far too bogged down for this stage of the game. Its turning me off to be honest.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
This is a reason, not a goal.

I still think that this is my goal, but I will think about the difference of a "reason" and a "goal" and I will let you know if I find that you were right.

Fun is playing the game. This is a game for christsake, not a math problem. It is absurd IMHO to start a philosophical debate on every single move we make (it isn't fun nor do we have the time to).

I can't help but noticing though that you seem to take these things very seriously. Or don't you? This is a serious question!