Repost: How I think we should be run

[Jon Miller]

hmm

I will lay out an idea of how things could be done
----------------
every person has a certain ammount of votes about who gets to play

we have one person play for a set ammount of time, this person is controller

the ammount of votes a person has increases by 1 (to a maximum of the number of members) everytime they do not get to be the controller and resets to 1 when they are the controller (So that everyone gets to play)

the controller gets determined in an election (in which every member is running)
--------------------
the controller should post what is going on currently to the satisfaction of the other members

if a member thinkgs that the controller is controllng poorly or thinks for some other reason the controller should lose control, that member can put a noconfidence motion on the floor

every member gets one vote in the noconfidence motion, if it is carried, elections for controller occur again (probably with some other member winning)
------------------------------
durring a controllers period at the helm discussion will be held to facilitate a good game being played
----------------
it is expected that before a new controller is elected that the members reach some sort of consensus about the general direction the civilization should go (the big things like who to go to war with, or wether to build a wonder or not, or what techs to go towards)
---------------------

these ideas go with my beleif that most members want to actually be playing at some point, that having continuity with the person who is playing is a good thing in general, and that for the small things (like the actual troop movements) the controller has a better feel for what is going on than those who are not playing at the moment

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

and: I think that the controler should have ultimate control over everything

Jon Miller

[flash9286]

only problem i have is that he should not have absolute control, big matters like war, treaties,trades should be voted on. But other than that looks good.

[Jon Miller]

well, that should be determined before the controller takes power

the actual implimentation needs to be all at the hands of the controller

and if we don't like what it is he does, no confidence

Jon Miller

[flash9286]

so we going to vote on the leader now Jon

[Wittlich]

Looks good Jon and I agree with Flash - war, treaties (and possibly trade) needs the support/vote of all members.

Concerning Trade: I suggest that trading Luxury goods, the controller can perform without a vote. Trading Strategic good does require a vote.

[Dis]

I agree that big things like war should be with support/vote

I'm not keen at getting approval for each tech. But we should agree with a certain "line". Say monarchy or Republic- things like that.

And strategic trading shouldn't require a vote unless we first determine beforehand there are certain civs we don't want to trade strategic techs with.

[Eli]

Concerning research :

Dissident is right. Every X turns we should set a "line" of research, that will consist of 3-4 techs. And set a new one when the last is almost done. This way everyone can participate in the tech selection and not just one person.

[Dis]

If we are Persia. I'm thinking we go for Republic first.

But we should also agree upon things like Horseriding and the "war" techs. This may be a lot of things to work out.

We need to work out how we are going to work these things out . Poll? suggestions?

[Wittlich]

I wouldn't be too concerned with houseback riding right off the bat, since our special unit is the Immortal - we should concentrate on getting them (Immortals) first.

[Dis]

agreed. But if we get into an early war we may need some mobility to prevent from being outflanked. immortals only have movement of 1. something to consider it. Something to consider before going to war.

[Jon Miller]

yes

if we feel the ened to go for war, we will take a excursion to horseback riding

Jon Miller

[Beta]

Hi folks - given my ineptness (is that a word) at meandering around the forums - I missed a lot of this discssion. I started a similar chat to Jon's - in fact - I quoted his original proposal - along with some questions. They are in the Hello thread. Can you check them out. Jon has responded with his answers.

[Beta]

Hello folks. Now that we are underway - can we please pick up on jon,s thread and finalize the team mechanics.

To re-cap Jon's proposed governance system:

Someone starts - after the set play period - there is a vote for the next controller.- the person who started gets 1 vote. All the others now get 2. After that period, the controller would have one vote, the controller from the first period would have two, everybody else 3.

Non-confidence motions can be issued at any time - (subject to reason I suppose). Everybody gets one vote. If it passes - election is held immediately.

I generally like the idea as well. It also fits with our current team name and theme.

So - some questions:

1. Does a controller play for 10 turns - or do we say 15, or 20?

2. How about a two term limit - as per the US president, as opposed to the Canadian dictator, er, Prime Minister?

3. How often is the controller obligated to inform and talk to the team - a) constantly, b) every five turns c) whenever it makes sense to - as determined by the controller or d) never - if he feels like it.

(I vote for c)

4. How do we handle foreign relations - do we have a separate position that does the chatting and negotaitions - or is it handled by the controller.

5. Does he, or they, need to consult with the team before negotiating?

6. And if we do have a separate Voice for Foreign Affairs (VFA), how do we determine that position. Votes. One each. Appointed by controller. Previous controller becomes the VFA???

7. And most importantly - in the votes - can you vote for yourself .... hmmm. I would say yes - that is the power of not be the controller for awhile - you WILL get to play.

8. In the non-confidence votes - does the current controller get a vote. I would say NO, simply because we have 6 on the team, and we would need to ensure no ties.

9 Speaking of which - how do we break ties in the elections (recount Florida?). I am going to suggest that 1 is added to either the controller, the VFA, or the team member(s) who have not played in the longest period - one of those three.

10. Or how about a new position - VIM - Voice of Internal Matters - the last Controller - the VIM would ensure voting and non-confidence issues are handled as per team rules, and would break any ties.

Jon has already responded to my questions. I will post his answers next. I think he is right on in keeping the origina; concept 'pure'. Thought I would generate some discussion here. The only point I might want to disagree about is the two term limit thing. It might be healthy. Just not sure. Maybe we should adopt jon's proposal, and say around 200 BC revisit the system to see if we are all on side. (with the rate the game may play - we may all be old and grey)

[Beta]

And jon's response to the 10 questions.... er - sort of....

1 10 turns
2 no lmit
3 c
no seperate positions
7 can vote for self
8 no
9 controller gets tie breaking vote

Jon Miller



(Let's hear from the rest of you.)