22-02-2004 10:30									#1
	Reforming Apolyton Diplomacy Increase Your PM Length

I don't need to say that things have gotten a bit out of hand. To some extent it's my fault, as I have kept quiet and allowed the Consuls to handle the recent UN issues as well as our relationship with CGN -- due to our military cooperation and advise that has been ongoing.

I cannot fault the Consuls. For the most part they've done an excellent job trying to push negotiations our way and including measures to settle our issues with GCA and to finally end our faux war with them. Trip and Arnelos have made signifigant contributions to the process, and I'm sure there's many others involved, but it's been difficult to follow as much of the logs have not been posted, nor have many public discussions on policy been held.

However, if the Consuls continue to handle diplomacy themselves, there really isn't a need for me or any other diplomats or ambassadors. I've had a talk with the Consuls about this, and I believe that we've reached an understanding of how things should be handled in the future.

I invite the Consuls to post their agreement/disagreement in this thread. I also invite team members to voice their agreement/disagreement.

PROPOSAL:

All Team to Team contacts will be handled through Foreign Affairs staff, preferably through an appointed ambassador. If that person is not available, then through myself or other diplomatic staff members. If we are not available, then the Consuls shall substitute or appoint a temporary ambassador.

All behind the scenes chats, discussions, prompting deal making, negotiating, and so forth will be handled by appointed staff only. This does not mean that other team members or Consuls will not be present in negotiations, as we will always attempt to perform them publicly.

Should the ambassador or FAM member screw things up, fail to follow the team's directives, or embarass Apolyton in any way, that person will be removed from office. Should the ambassador or FAM member not perform his job in a satisfactory manor, he will be replaced. I will hold my ambassadors accountable and the Consuls will hold me accountable. Furthermore, the people of Apolyton should hold the Consuls accountable.

Representation of Apolyton at the UN shall be handled by ONE CONSUL, who will be chosen by agreement of the Consuls. That individual will be the only person who speaks for Apolyton at the UN. That individual must coordinate with the FAM and with the other Consuls, and should be the primary source of information for our team regarding UN matters.

That Consul will be held accountable by the other Consuls and by the people of Apolyton and should be removed from his responsibility by either if he is not performing up to the standards that Apolyton expects of him.

My job as the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be to coordinate and supervise the work of my ambassadors, advise the Consuls, and to fill in for my ambassadors when they are not available.

This policy will be put into place (once agreed on) as soon as practical, and special consideration will be made for our military cooperation/relationship with CGN.

--Togas

	22-02-2004 10:41									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

having obviously discussed this with Togas and Arnelos in the chat room, I am in full favor of these reforms and applaud Togas' efforts for getting around to doing this.

If I am permitted to recommend people for diplomatic positions, I would very much enjoy seeing conmcb and WhiteBandit doing active diplo work, ideally with CGN and CFC respectively, the two teams where we have more at stake. I would also recommend OPD for GWT since he is in MAST and is frequently found in the chat room.

	22-02-2004 11:10									#3
	Support Apolyton

I agree with everything except that I don't think it should be a Consul who acts as our UN Rep.


Consuls have enough power as it is! Why give them more when this is supposed to be a Democracy game in which duties are shared and distributed throughout the membership.


This is all really unexplored since nowhere in our Constitution is there a provision that allows for what is being proposed by Togas. I, for one, would like to see an amendment to the Consituion that allows for the creation of the office of "UN Representative" with a position for a vice Rep as well. I think this position should be an elected position, as in elected by the Senate and not appointed by the Consuls. There should be a term limit so as to give others a chance at becoming one.

	22-02-2004 11:11									#4
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Considering how much of a role I just played in discussing this with you, obviously I agree with much of it.

I fully agree on the issue that we need to the let the FAM take the leadership on our relations with foreign powers, not the Consuls. The Foreign Affairs Minister, that PERSON, should be the point person on Diplomatic affairs. That's what I said in chat.

The FAM needs to appoint responsible and AVAILABLE ambassadors to each team. The FAM needs to keep those people accountable.

However, because that PERSON will not always be available 24/7, I find it perfecly acceptable for other people to help them with their job. My idea, which I think I didn't lay out well enough in chat, was that the official Ambassador to a team will be the point person on diplomacy to that team that ALL others conducting diplomacy with that team need to report to, including Consuls.

So if that person is unavailable and a critical issue needs to be discussed, a Consul may step in and discuss the issue with another team. However, they must then report to the Ambassador to that team about what took place. Furthermore, in all situations, the AMBASSADOR should take priority over the Consul for conducting diplomacy when both are available.

This does indeed involve some circular lines of accountability, seeing as the Consuls are the superiors (through the FAM) of individual ambassadors. However, the point is that the Ambassador to a team needs to have control over negotiations with that team. Having Consuls running off on their own doing negotiations with a team is going to play havoc on that control. That means that anyone, Consuls included, that perform any negotiations with THEIR team need to answer TO THEM about what they've done.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to perform negotiations with a team should consult with the Ambassador to that team AHEAD OF TIME to let them know about what they intend to do and SEEK THEIR PERMISSION to do so. Ultimately, because of the authority issue, a Consul may be able to overrule an ambassador, but the Ambassador is given every opportunity to explain what they're trying to accomplish in their negotiations and why a Consul should not do such and such. This gives an Ambassador a retained level of control over negotiations with a team even when they were not the negotiator. This would also apply to ANYONE negoatiating with that team, not just a Consul... you should run everything by the Ambassador both ahead of time and afterward. It would be nice if you also got their permission.

This all said, the Ambassador THEMSELVES is the preferred person to chat with another team in most situations. There may certainly be some situations where head-of-state to head-of-state chats would be useful, but these are comparatively very rare and almost all negotiations are best conducted by delegating to the appointed Ambassador to a team. For this reason, the Consuls should take it upon themselves ot REFRAIN from butting in on any Ambassador who is in chat with their negotiating partner and thus on the job. Even when the Ambassador is not there, the Consul needs to consult them (as covered above), so this gives the Ambassador a significant level of control over negotiaions with their partner.

The Foreign Affairs Minister himself, on the other hand, has the job of coordinating his ambassadors, giving them their marching orders and discussing diplomatic plans with them. The Consuls are empowered with overseeing the FAM and giving the FAM its marching orders on overall policy, whereas he FAM is empowered to give the individual ambassadors their marching orders on HOW TO IMPLEMENT said overall policy. Furthermore, as tasked in the Constitution, the FAM has the job of advising the Consuls on the formulation of said overall policy.

Overall policy is also subject to input from the TEAM through discussion threads and polls.

This system should set up relatively clear lines of accountability from Ambassador to FAM to Consuls to Team. It also gives individual Ambassadors control over negotiations with their negotiating partner so that Consuls and team members are not running about doing things on teir own without consulting the Ambassador.

To put this all simply:

Team: Discusses and votes in polls concerning overall team goals and policies, major diplomatic issues (wars, treaties, etc.). Provides as much guidance or as little guidance to the Consuls and FAM as they have time and desire to do.

Consuls: Discusses and decides on any issues of policy not already decided by polls or more technical than is covered in polls. Takes the advice they receive from the FAM and the Team to make decisions on foreign policy. Then tells the FAM what this policy is.

secondary role: May aid Ambassadors with their job, but must submit themselves to reporting to the Ambassador to a team before and after negotiations and should hold back and let the Ambassador do the job where-ever possible. Exceptions exist for when the Consuls feel the need to call for a head-of-state to head-of-state summit with another team (for MAJOR issues), but otherwise Consuls should remain in the background rather than foreground on ambassadorial duties.

Foreign Affairs Minister: Advises the Consuls (and Team) about overall foreign policy objectives, goals, etc. Accepts his marching orders from the Team and the Consuls on when DECISIONS are made on overall foreign policy. Then decides, on his own, how to IMPLEMENT said policy. Then gives the ambassadors their marching orders on how to implement the policy given to him by the Team and Consuls. Keeps the Ambassadors accountable and replaces them as needed.

Ambassadors: Receive their marching orders on what the policy is and how to implement it from their superiors in the chain of command. They then have control over the actual implementation itself with the team to which they are assigned. They are the point person for negotiations with the team to which they are assigned. Anyone else negotiating with that team needs to consult them both beforehand (where possible if a superior in the chain of command) and afterhand (for everyone).

-------------------

My abject apologies on how long it took me to write all of that. I was sorta re-organizing it in my head as I went and ended up restating everything in the summary. If you don't feel like reading it all, just read the bolded sections.

	22-02-2004 11:19									#5
	Put an end to popups!

You forgot the part where the Consuls tell the MoI and the MoW what to do and how to do it.

	22-02-2004 11:25									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

As for the issue of Consuls being U.N. reps, here's my thinking on it.

1. Consuls have been the de facto U.N. representatives for this team since I rejoined it in July. Making one or more of them the de jure U.N. representative(s) only implements what has already LONG been in practice.

2. The United Nations Forum is a place where heads of state from each team meet to discuss game rules and is not diplomacy itself. The Consuls are best suited for this job for the same reason that oher teams send their heads of state: Consuls are the members of the team most directly accountable to popular will through the electoral process and most involved in the management of the save games themselves - and likely to always be familiar with what is happening turn-by-turn. The "UN forum" more models a summit between heads of state than it models a U.N. committee in which the representatives give statements, but have several levels of supervisors above them before accountability along the chain of command makes it back to the voting public.

So it is entirely appropriate for the Consuls to act as the official U.N. representatives, as has been the de facto practice here for months. Every team has drifted toward this being he practice away from other methods over time for the same reasons I've stated above.

	22-02-2004 11:40									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by BigFree I agree with everything except that I don't think it should be a Consul who acts as our UN Rep.

See this is the part I still don't get, other than saying that the Consuls already have enough power I don't see any other major argument why not.

I would just like to point out that doing the UN isn't really any "extra" job since we merely post what we discuss among us consuls after consultation with the team in the threads and polls posted in this forum. Furthermore, having a non-consul do the UN forum involves an extra step of bureacracy, since that person would be required to consult with us before posting at the UN. In other words, we'd be doing double work which is frankly, quite redundant.

Also, the issue here isn't power or burden, it's efficiency. It is far more efficient to have a consul do this job than appoint an extra person since we consuls do the discussion on UN matters anyway.

Look at it this way:

The way the FAM works is that that the FAM minister proposes on a course of action, in other words, this person sees the "big picture" and offers the best way to confront the issue. This is discussed by the citizenry and the Consuls who approve/disprove on the FAM's guidelines.

If it is approved, the Minster then has ambassadors actually conducting the diplomacy. As you see, all roles are clearly defined and flow naturally without any redundancy. It is efficient.

What is the difference between the UN and the team-to-team diplomatic channels?

1) That there is no one person to initially advise on policy (like the FAM is with diplomacy). Policy is taken by the entire team since it involves game mechanics which affect us all.

2) Involvement in the UN is forum based whereas the diplomacy is chat based (mostly). The FAM would find it impossible to be present all day in 2 or more channels which is why there are ambassords to actively do this work. In the UN, posting Apolyton's position is nothing more than arranging things which have already been posted in these threads or spoken in chat.


In conclusion, this team is a democracy not because we have every possible way of splitting labor among everyone. Sure, we an also have people in charge of workers, another in charge of WF, another in charge of city builds, another in charge of mobile units, another in ch arge of defensive untis.... etc. and have all 30+ active people with an active job. Would this be efficient? Of course not. I find it rather ironic that you ask for the consuls to share duties when we have guys like E_T which are practically one-man ministries in charge of the most important thing in our team: the economy.

My point is therefore that sharing of duties is good when it increases the efficiency of the team. If not, it only makes thing more bureacractic and increases the workload which is far less conducive to having an involved citizenry. We need people in charge of diplomacy with other teams right now since we are lacking in that department, we don't need someone extra in charge of the UN since the consuls have been in charge of this from the start and have done a good job at it so far.

-MZ

	22-02-2004 11:49									#8
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen In conclusion, this team is a democracy not because we have every possible way of splitting labor among everyone. Sure, we an also have people in charge of workers, another in charge of WF, another in charge of city builds, another in charge of mobile units, another in ch arge of defensive untis.... etc. and have all 30+ active people with an active job. Would this be efficient? Of course not. I find it rather ironic that you ask for the consuls to share duties when we have guys like E_T which are practically one-man ministries in charge of the most important thing in our team: the economy. My point is therefore that sharing of duties is good when it increases the efficiency of the team. If not, it only makes thing more bureacractic and increases the workload which is far less conducive to having an involved citizenry. We need people in charge of diplomacy with other teams right now since we are lacking in that department, we don't need someone extra in charge of the UN since the consuls have been in charge of this from the start and have done a good job at it so far.

This is another point I made in chat that I didn't fully repeat in this thread. To repeat what I said in chat (and you've repeated somewhat here):

This team is a democratic republic.

It achieves democracy not through dividing up authority, but through the establishment of clear lines of authority and a chain of command which leads back to the voting public as a whole. This places the public far more firmly in charge of the team than would be the case in a more feudalized government structure.

This is a centralized democratic republic. We had a lot of constitutional discussion when this game started and we consciously picked his model because we believed it was the best for this type of game. I believe that we were right.

	22-02-2004 11:49									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos As for the issue of Consuls being U.N. reps, here's my thinking on it. 1. Consuls have been the de facto U.N. representatives for this team since I rejoined it in July. Making one or more of them the de jure U.N. representative(s) only implements what has already LONG been in practice.

No, they have not. Beta did the job when he was active. It's only the latest round of Consuls that have this notion that THEY are the UN Reps.

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos 2. The United Nations Forum is a place where heads of state from each team meet to discuss game rules and is not diplomacy itself.

You've got to be joking!

Trying to tell us that Diplomacy is not being used at the UN is like trying to put a rice paddy in the middle of the Sahara desert! Nice idea, but it doesn't pass muster.

	22-02-2004 11:55									#10
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos This team is a democratic republic.

Call it whatever you want, it is still about the Consuls wanting more power and limiting the Senate's than what was given to them and more than they had in the past no matter how you seem to remember it.

	22-02-2004 11:55									#11
	Got spare money?

BigFree,

If you would like to review the situations under which I believe head-of-state to head-of-state talks are appropriate for diplomacy, please see my post regarding FAM structure.

As for the role Beta had, you missed two aspects of what I have posted (probably on purpose):

#1) Beta retained his role for a while, but had already long since ceased as the de facto U.N. representative by July when I returned to the team. So:

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos 1. Consuls have been the de facto U.N. representatives for this team since I rejoined it in July. Making one or more of them the de jure U.N. representative(s) only implements what has already LONG been in practice.

Furthermore:

#2)

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos So it is entirely appropriate for the Consuls to act as the official U.N. representatives, as has been the de facto practice here for months. Every team has drifted toward this being the practice away from other methods over time for the same reasons I've stated above.

So yes, it will pass muster.

	22-02-2004 11:56									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by BigFree No, they have not. Beta did the job when he was active. It's only the latest round of Consuls that have this notion that THEY are the UN Reps.

both you and vondrack had considerable UN presence while they were consuls. Beta's involvement was mostly during the game setup stages when the game hadn't even yet started.

For most of your stint as consul, YOU were this team's representative in the UN so don't start ranting on this being a new thing by us three present consuls.

	22-02-2004 12:04									#13
	Tired of ads?

So, if 'everyone' is doing, then we must because it must be the right way or the better way? Whatever! We have our own form of goverment which may or may not be different than other teams. I will tell you that we have more memebrs than the other teams.

If you had bothered to read previous threads or ak questions then you would have known that Beta was the UN rep. Don't blame your lack of knowing on anyone else but yourself. As a Consul I would think you would have known whose task it was. But, instead, you assign it to yourselves, as Consuls. How convienient for you. Just an attempt to seize more power. Funny how MZ lables it a just making us more efficient! Along with his comment about how having to actually talk with a UN Rep about what they should say as being "redundant" and likening it to the Consul "doing double work." Man, I just crack up at that! Since MZ feels it would be harder for the Consuls to work with a UN rep that was not a Consul, then we should use a Consul for the position since it would be easier for him to control!

If that does not sound like a lame excuse for a power grab...

	22-02-2004 12:08									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And have you seen Beta arond lately in this forum? Has he posted at the UN?

Of course I know that Beta had been appointed UN rep since I supported it but it is of no use if he isn't present for whatever reason and it was also before this latest round of UN discussion which has made it all but obvious that our current system is flawed.

As usual you have voiced your protest. Point taken.

-MZ

	22-02-2004 12:10									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

BigFree,

My point is and was that other teams have moved to this system because of the same reasons we did. It's the better way of doing it. We've already been using it ourselves. We were using it when YOU were a Consul, even.

That said, I'm through discussing this issue with you. We're starting to run in circles and you've obviously already given up on discussing it seriously.

I've made my argument, I'm content to let it stand on its own.

	22-02-2004 12:11									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've said my piece, it's time for the others that don't want their voices diminshed by the current leaders I'll hereto refer as "The Hungry Men"

	22-02-2004 12:41									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The nature of the UN, as it presently exists, has really become a place where the team leaders let everyone know about the status of the save and when it is passed on, or where they dispute and discuss rules issues.

The leaders of the different teams speak for their teams. Every other team has a single leader, and each of them generally come and post in the UN for their team. We have three leaders. It makes sense that one of them should speak for us and not a fourth person as the custom seems to already be in effect and has worked so far.

If the team really really wanted a separate UN representative, that wouldn't be the end of the world. However, it does seem somewhat redundant and unnecessary, and it would add to the bureaucracy and make yet another person that needed to be consulted.

--Togas

	22-02-2004 12:52									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sorry BigFree but I agree with Togas, Arnelos, and MZ on this point. We should have one consul who is our UN Representative. As team leaders the consuls should be the voice at the UN just like it has been since I became a member of the team when you were a consul and primary UN ambassador.

As to the other point of this thread we do need to get back to having the clear delineation of who the ambassadors to the other teams will be. Lately it has been kind of haphazard because of the sheer amount of negotiating that has gone on with the current situation. But a return to having specific members be ambassadors would be very helpful as Togas outlined above. Conmcb25 and White Bandit are both excellent choices as they are both active members and already good at diplomatic work.

	22-02-2004 21:48									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos 2. The United Nations Forum is a place where heads of state from each team meet to discuss game rules and is not diplomacy itself.

Thanks for quoting me.

Unfortunately, BigFree is right: that is not what the UN in our game is all about. If it were strictly about game rules we would have no qualms with asking about potential exploits before they're used, but due to strategic reasons we do not do this.

I'm not at all convinced by the whole "it's great when what is right is what is best" argument. If this is true, we should grant GWT's latest proposal, and continue playing from the most recent turn. This is right, but perhaps not best.


Dominae

	22-02-2004 22:45									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dominae I'm not at all convinced by the whole "it's great when what is right is what is best" argument. If this is true, we should grant GWT's latest proposal, and continue playing from the most recent turn. This is right, but perhaps not best. Dominae

Please define how this is "right"?

It maybe most expeditious and the easiest way out but I still dont think its really the most "right" way.

The game still has effects of "exploits". We were VERY close to going back and at least in the most part eliminating those effects.

Wouldn't that have been the most "right" way?

	22-02-2004 22:59									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Please get your stories straight.

We supposedly used unit-teleporting to prove a point. Our planned defense was that mongoose allowed this exploit. We did not do it expecting to replay the turns (I defy you to find a post to the contrary).

GWT is giving us what we originally wanted. We have no right to change our minds because it no longer suits us.

(Edit: Sorry that this is off-topic.)


Dominae

	22-02-2004 23:35									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Dominae is correct.

GWT's offer matches our own original policy. I happen to be in favor of it. That said, as Dominae has just pointed out, there is another thread to discuss this.

	23-02-2004 00:24									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Fine, but I dont think you understand my point.

Its still not the "right" way, it just happens to macth our original position.

My only point being I still think it would be better to go back and clean this game from the taint of exploits.

Thats my opinion, not necessarily the teams.

Im well aware of what our initial position was.

	23-02-2004 00:43									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Can't our opinon of what's right and what's wrong change? Why would we even bother to listen to others if we can't ever change our own opinons?

I see no problem with it changing as long as it doesn't change every turn or it is only changed because that would be in the best interest of Apolyton.

	23-02-2004 01:37									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 My only point being I still think it would be better to go back and clean this game from the taint of exploits.

If our own CGN allies hadn't messed a situaion that was in their own advantage by throwing it out while demanding something better, we would have gotten that.

Ultimately, what was good for CGN wasn't good enough for CGN and now we're going to get stuck with the original situaiton - one which was mediocre for CGN.

There isn't much we can do about that. I mean GWT called for us to replay from the point before the unit warping tactic was started on. If GWT no longer wants to, upon what grounds do we argue that we should? "We used an exploit and we demand that we replay so that we don't". It just doesn't hold water. If GWT, who are the ones HURT by the exploit's use, agree to just let it stand, then that effectively settles the matter. The fact that it matches our original policy makes us look positively silly if we insist now that it's not good enough.

	23-02-2004 02:26									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Arne, I dont disagree, but it would have been optimal to make things "right".

And CGN had a point about going back to 390 in order to do that.

But its all shoulda coulda woulda.

We are stuck now.

	23-02-2004 17:45									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ahem, getting back ON topic if I may....

As we have seen in the game so far, it is not always the best thing to have Consuls posting at the UN, especially seeing as the most activity seen there involves what must surely be seen as diplomacy, and attempting to arrange an agreement and compromise between all the disparate teams. This is certainly a difficult task on its own, and perhaps worthy of a special position (such as the somewhat defunct UN rep), or for a number of FAM people allowed to post to push towards a diplomatic solution. I see no need to really restrict UN posts except in the case that diplomacy needs to be undertaken (as in the whole recent replaying turns/ banning teleportation debate).

I think there are many (from multiple teams) who contributed strongly towards getting to a decision in the last week, and it would be a shame to have lost all of that positive input by restricting posts to one person, or to just the Consuls. Can we not have it so:

• no restriction on UN posts to team members. No Poly team member is stupid enough to abuse this
  
• in the normal course of events Consuls handle most of the matters and we should expect them to ask the rest of the team to butt out of something if we are in the way
  
• where careful diplomacy is the best method, as it should have been/was after a while recently, we should only have diplomatic representative with level heads and clear agendas posting with the express aim of resolving the matter at hand
  

	23-02-2004 21:42									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt no restriction on UN posts to team members. No Poly team member is stupid enough to abuse this

You haven't read that whole UN thread at CDG have you? This is the MAIN reason we're pushing for this reform!

	23-02-2004 21:49									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt [*] no restriction on UN posts to team members. No Poly team member is stupid enough to abuse this

Um... I have to beg to differ, unfortunately.

	23-02-2004 21:55									#30
	Put an end to popups!

Abuse and stupid are very strong words........

Lets not get started again, OK kids