24-02-2004 06:47									#61
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Back resuming debate on the UN Rep issue. My personal points of view on each of the solutions so far presented:

U.N. Representation (defined as person who can post freely at the UN forum)

1 - The Consuls

Accountability: can get CoCed

Advantage: The Consuls by default must be caught up on everything that happens at the UN so discussion of all UN matters is something we already do. It would therefore be no extra work for us to act as official representatives of Apolyton

Disadvantages: I honestly don't see any other than a few people's twisted idea that us Hungry Men™ just want more power.

2 - One Consul

Accountability: can get CoCed

Advantage: One team, one voice. Otherwise, same advantages as above.

Disadvantage: Might not be online when something pressing needs to be posted. Having 3 consuls ensures that the probability of one of the three being available is much higher.

3 - FAM Ambassador

Accountability: being FAM, can be hired/fired by the FAM at will

Advantage: Has the FAM conducting all communications with other teams. In essense, is another ambassador.

Disadvantage: Must be very active with not only the UN but also with the team and consuls. So far our history with ambassors has shown that many people get lost in the job.

4 - Citizen Representative

Accountability: being a citizen, has none, unless this is clearly stipulated in a new amendment.

Advantage: One more job for the citizenry.

Disadvantage: Same with FAM Ambassador.

5 - No Official Representative

Accountability: None at all.

Advantage: Everyone can post at will.

Disadvantage: Everyone can post at will. As this last UN debacle has shown, not everyone has refrained from abusing his free speech, nor do they seem to have the interest in changing their attitude in this regard.



Any more options are welcome

-MZ

	24-02-2004 06:51									#62
	Got spare money?

MZ has laid out the pros and cons as I see them pretty well.

	24-02-2004 08:02									#63
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen 1 - The Consuls ... Disadvantages: I honestly don't see any other than a few people's twisted idea that us Hungry Men™ just want more power.

What about us lowly Citizens actualling wanting a voice?!

quote: 4 - Citizen Representative ... 5 - No Official Representative

There is accountability in both these situations, namely the understanding that anyone who is part of this team will not intentionally do something really stupid that hurts our chances for victory and/or a fun time. Just because there is no official accountability within the Constitution does mean it does not exist.

Obviously this brings up the subject of BigFree's recent posts at the UN. I think that we can all agree he was being pretty belligerent, and therefore probably made APO look bad. Whether or not he hurt our chances in this game and whether he cares is up for debate. With this debate we decide whether BigFree should continue to be a part of the team or not. I see nothing wrong with ejecting potentially harmful citizens (call me a Fascist, but democracies do it too...).

The simple point is that restricting freedom of speech is too drastic a reaction to one member's inflammatory posts at the UN. The appropriate thing to do is to deal with that member specifically, either publicly or in private (publicly is better).


Dominae


P.S: BigFree, man, please try to be at least a bit constructive in your posts here or at the UN. A through-and-through contrarian's constant complaints eventually fall on deaf ears.

	24-02-2004 08:19									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

well, there are direct precedents for both CoC's (Dominae vs WIA, FP vs BF) and attempts of a citizen calling for banning another citizen: WB vs panag.

The option has been there, why the citizenry has not used it is a question you guys should ask yourselves. Since us consuls cannot call for the banning of anyone, our only resort so far has been to deal with the matter privately, and publically too (in the threads, though not calling for a ban). In both cases it has fallen on deaf ears.

That being said, my instinct tells me we would be best in avoiding things like these happening in the first place, rather than having people banned after the damage is done.

-MZ

	24-02-2004 08:26									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Although the Consuls cannot officially call for the ban of any Citizen, they can certainly post to the effect that a Citizen is hurting more than helping the team. Any other active Citizen who agrees would be duty-bound to call for a ban.

Regarding preventative legislation, I would rather rely on Citizen common sense here rather than impose severe restrictions. There's plenty of stuff that any of us could do that would royally screw over the team that we are not officially banning (for instance, sending GWT a copy of our Military Advisor screen). Common sense rules man!


Dominae

	24-02-2004 08:48									#66
	Suffering from ads?

Well, call me a softie, but I'd prefer not to ban BigFree. He's a royal pain in he *** much of the time, but even his heckling is occassionally constructive and he has contributed a great deal to the team. He's also a member of the team family. We might not get along all of the time and a lot of us might be pissed as all hell at him right now, but he's still a member of the team.

BigFree has stated that while he feels he should have the right to post whatever he wants at the U.N., he would respect the creation of a new rule that restricted his ability to do that, assuming the team supported it.

Call ME a fascist if you want, but I think that's a better solution than kicking BigFree off of the team. I get pissed when BigFree does stuff like this, but he's still an assett to the team and a member of the team "family", so to speak.

	24-02-2004 09:21									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

A post in the UN, and a PM to the other teams saying that BF does not represent Apolyton team policy or attitudes would suffice.

We are wasting a lot of time, effort and resources here. Gagging our whole team just to ensure 1 person can no longer post in the UN forum is not the way to go.

We have far more important things to do...like negotiating the elimination of the WW exploit.

	24-02-2004 09:31									#68
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Having multiple people posting suggesting different things and different topics, whether an official or not, gives the impression of disorganization and lack of a unified policy to follow (which are both completely true).

Whoever the UN Rep is (or even if we don't have one at all) we need things better organized.

	24-02-2004 09:55									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dominae The appropriate thing to do is to deal with that member specifically, either publicly or in private (publicly is better).

I dont agree basic leadership 101 is scold in private and praise in public.

If some one has a problem with anyone they shoudl handle via PM.

Save the public forums for issues and praise.

	24-02-2004 10:02									#70
	Support Apolyton

I also would not like to kick BF out, because his contribution to this team (at least in the past) has been tremendous and like Arnelos said, is part of the team "family" and a chat regular.

I also think he's a pretty cool guy outside ISDG issues and I would fear that kicking him out would cause considerable personal resentment.

	24-02-2004 12:03									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Way back at my last post...

If we had a clear definition for roles and responsibilities with matters at the UN no citizen would be stupid enough to abuse their privilege of posting there. We currently have a vacuum with no clear UN rep or role for dealing with the UN and THAT is what has led to all this bitterness. When we establish such a line of authority, I know that no active citizen of the moment would fly in the face of the system, except perhaps to challenge it in this forum. It is impossible to not name names anymore, so I will. BF is the one that most of this is directed at, but I am certain that should we have a clear system that was accepted through a vote, BF (and no-one else either) would not contravene it beyond a spirited challenge right HERE, which is his right and duty.

Arn's position on having the Consuls as UN reps and none others is understandable from an ease of implementation and convenience POV, but to me is undesirable through the simple deal of giving the Consuls more to do and not giving anyone else this job. We may have to fall back on this, but can we not find other options to test first?

For instance, why not have a cadre of 3-5 UN-authorised reps? This solves the problem of it resting on the shoulders of one, who may not always be active. It also means we can have some specialisation, where there are multiple topics being discussed; we can have 2-3 reps per topic, at times. We certainly have posters here, even some active ones, who would fit the bill for diplomacy purposes, and I daresay some appropriate inactive ones may show their hands as well.

Whatever happens, it is clear that, at the bottom of this all Dom has the point to take to heart - time for a list of options and a POLL. Nothing else will suffice. None will be satisfied by a unilateral decision by the Consuls or even perhaps the FAM, so it is time to refer to the ultimate authority on the matter - the team itself. We have had just about enough on the various options open to us, can we please stop the bickering, find some options and poll? There are some 10 members posting here so far. There are more who vote than just this number, and I am sure that they, like me, want this dealt with and put aside so we can play on.

	24-02-2004 12:36									#72
	Put an end to popups!

Another option is to have "team" of representatives.

Say for example the 3 consuls, the FAM, and a citizen specially appointed for this duty. I honestly don't see any benefits in efficiency but would at least give participation to each branch of government.

	24-02-2004 12:49									#73
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dominae P.S: BigFree, man, please try to be at least a bit constructive in your posts here or at the UN. A through-and-through contrarian's constant complaints eventually fall on deaf ears.

Let us speak of specifics when we speak of any of my possible transgressions.

Here's a post in which irritated MZ enough for him to publicly attack his own team mate:

quote: quote: "ulalume" Are you ever going to try to back up anything you are saying? Your are accusing us for a lot of things, do one-liner statements and are in general just trash talking. We on the other hand have been sending combat calculations to whiners like you who has been accusing us for cheating, and been playing scenarios to see what really happens. Why we did run away? Because that option won with one or two votes more than the other alternative in a poll. This is my own personal opinion and other APO members may or may not feel the same. I personally think GCA cheated during our war and in the wars they had with CDG and CFC. There, I said it. Are you happy now? The "calculations" that we did on your 'success' against us was astounding, to say the least. While I do not have any iron clad proof that GCA cheated I feel that the circumstantial evidence clearly supports it. Don't ask me how you would accomplish it; only you would know. What I do know is that the odds of your success's against APO were over the 1 in 100,000 range, IIRC. Then throw in what I heard from CDG and CFC about your prior success's against them and that just adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence already in your file. Is circumstantial evidence enough to convict someone? You bet it is; at least in the U.S., I don't know about it where you come from. Am I saying all members of GCA cheated? No. I do not belive that would be likely. It's more like just a couple, possibly even just Lucky himself. For this reason I would like to see GCA removed from the game and from the 2nd game being set up now. I do not trust Lucky and I never will. Could I be wrong about all this? Yes, I could be wrong, but that chances of that are, well, over 1 in 100,000.

Here's the attack from MZ:

quote: I would appreciate it if members of my team would respond to others in a cordial fashion. This debate can get heated but it is no reason to insult or provoke others needlessly. Respond with FACTS, not with childish and moronic comments which only make our team look dumb. With that in mind, I would just like to point out that unless something is posted by our three consuls (Arnelos, Trip and myself) whatever is said merely reflects the opinion of that person and not of our team as a whole, much less our official position on the matter. Thank you and apologies for my peer's obvious lack of tact. -MZ

And my repsponse to him:

quote: Piss off MZ, you wuss.

Now, that's just about all that I think MZ and Co. had a problem with. Now, should I have called out GCA in public about their cheating? I say yes. The fellow from GCA was begging for me to let him know why we felt the way we do. He called me/us whiners. I let him know we were so with good reason.

Where's the sense in MZ attacking me there? Where's the solidarity? I would never do something like that to a team mate, though I will defend myself if forced to.

Now, if a rule was instituted that no one could post in the UN forum except for the UN Rep, then I would wholly abide by that.

Also, the complaints from the "Hungry Men" did not come to well after GWT pulled away from the compromise. In fact, Arnelos went so far as to congratulate my tactics in geting the latest information about cheating from Lucky. He said he may not have liked my methods but he was glad of the info I got and the compromise, though that was eventually lost .

You can't have it both ways. I honestly feel that if the deal had not fallen apart, then the "Hungry Men" wouldn't be complaining right now.

	25-02-2004 00:01									#74
	Full PM-box? Change here!

My absolutely last reply to BF in the near future:

quoting the UN forum

quote: Blah Blah Blah you sore loser. If GWT did not gift you a city, you'd have been dead a long time ago pal. Catapults are good for knocking down walls and reducing the population of a town/city, just so you know for your next game. If you are so sure you would have withstood APO's assualt and would not have been eliminated, then why did you run your scared little chicken butts away? You must be related to Lucky; you share same lack of common sense. I really would like to see GCA to be removed from this game and from the C3C ISDG based upon their actions and beliefs as a team.

That's what I answered to in my UN post, not the one you quoted. Tell me if that is proper behavior in public, tell me if it puts our team in good light, and especially tell me if you plan to use this behavior if you were ever chosen as our UN Rep.

I swear this is my final reply. I think the evidence stands on its own from now on.

-MZ

	25-02-2004 04:50									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So, I can't say that they ran away; even though they did.

So, I can't say that their arguments lack substance; even though it's clear they do.

So, I can't say I would like them removed form this game; even though most people on our team, including CGN and CFC agree.

So, I can't say anything that could be contrued as 'smack' talk; even though they, as well as other teams, use it?

Using the truth or what we or I at Apolyton consider the truth, without fabricating one iota of information should not be allowed? Where did I make any statements that contradict what some or most on this team think of feel? What's the matter with the truth? What's wrong with telling it like it is? Are we afraid that GCA might get mad at us?

Are there not politicians/businessmen who just tell it like it is and get respected for it? How many times do you hear somone trying to get a point across without ever really saying what exactly is on their mind? That drives me bonkers to see it.

Now, if I ever lied, misrepresented the facts or otherwise was treading on very thin ice with any of my statements or accusations, as far as measuring the amount of truth or plausibility in them, then you'd have a point. As it stands I simply made statements that GCA did not like but were generally accepted among our members as either truth or very likely the truth.

The fact that the statements were not 'friendly' does not mean they were not 'factful' nor undeserved.

	26-02-2004 09:00									#76
	Put an end to popups!

Guess I should have stayed around more and kept the U.N. job.....

I say it put it to a poll, and let the team decide how we want to handle the role from here on.

And BF - my two cents worth - and that's probably all it is worth since I am not here as much as others - I enjoy dealing with you one on one in PBEM's and the like, and you have made major contributions to this team ..... but you are one edgy individual.

I think back to UnO packing it in because you didn't like his poll on naming what was essentially his newspaper (as in - he does most of the work). So, we have never had one. Which is a bit of a drag. And yes, Uno can be edgy sometimes as well.

And the first UN incident. And how you didn't quite take the high road after that and the CoC and election.

And this incident.

You say you don't have time to be a consul - but you seem to have lots of time for all this other - well - nonsense, to be honest.

If you really feel that strongly about these things - then run for consul and the people can decide.

AND I do believe that Apolyton, and the ISDG have room for a wide range of personalities and behaviours, but man, lighten up, will ya.

And as others have asked - and I say it sincerely - stay on the team. You are BigFree, you are part of this team, and we want you on this team, as much as sometimes you leave me, and others, shaking their heads.

Peace. ...Beta.

	26-02-2004 10:18									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen 3 - FAM Ambassador Accountability: being FAM, can be hired/fired by the FAM at will Advantage: Has the FAM conducting all communications with other teams. In essense, is another ambassador. Disadvantage: Must be very active with not only the UN but also with the team and consuls. So far our history with ambassors has shown that many people get lost in the job. Any more options are welcome -MZ

6 - FAM (ie Togas himself)

Accountability : can be hired/fired by the Consul

Advantage : FAM is already involved in overseeing the affairs of the ambassador. So, he has a deep understanding of what's happening in the game and with other teams. Leaders of other teams would know him well too.
A second advantage is he being not a Consul, can hold back his decision at UN. We do not want snap decision at UN level, it's always wiser to come back to Poly, discuss it among the Consuls & ministers before posting the official Poly view.

Disadvantage : FAM, not being a Consul, cannot make the official decision.

	26-02-2004 11:58									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Beta: I had nothing at all to do with UnO not writing a paper. Ask him yourself. It was, IIRC, about some jerks who wrote him some nasty PM's.

I have time right now, but not in the near future, for an official position in the ISDG as a Consul. I guess me just saying that isn't enough for you. I hope you are not calling me a liar.

I have always done what I thought was best for the team in general. If I have conviction for my opinions that others do not agree with I'm not going to apologize for it. People are free to ignore me if they choose. While I respect other's rights to play in this game in the manner that they see fit; I'm in it for my own personal enjoyment and I will do what I think is right without breaking any of the teams rules or regulations. If there was a rule that said only one person could post at the UN as a Rep of Apolyton, then I would fully respect that rule. Since there wasn't, I spoke my peace a few times; none of which, IMO, harmed our team, real or imagined, or it's chances to win.

	26-02-2004 16:23									#79
	Tired of ads?

So a poll on the options presented so far then?

Options so far:

Who should be the person/people granted the ability to post at the UN?

1. Consuls
2. A Consul
2. A dedicated UN rep (elected?)
3. FAM/FAM granted person
4. FAM granted team of individuals
5. None official, any can post

Personally I think a two-stage poll is in order. First I would have:

How should posting at the UN be restricted?

1. Only the UN rep(s) as decided from the above options can post at all at the UN
2. All can post at the UN. No restrictions to any threads/issues for sufficiently motivated team members.
3.Anyone can post at the UN but only the offical rep(s) can claim to speak officially for the team or in certain threads/on certain issues.

Followed (or accompanied) by a poll that decides, should 1. or 3. be chosen, WHO this(these) UN rep(s) is(are).

Sound OK?

	26-02-2004 18:05									#80
	Got spare money?

I like it :b

E_T

	26-02-2004 19:30									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I concur MWIA

	26-02-2004 21:03									#82
	Support Apolyton

:sigh:

That's currently the way we've been working.

The problem, like I have stated for the past 3 pages is that this is all for naught since anyone, even when not speaking in the name of the team, can go raise a racket, insult people and in general make the team look like asses.

So tell me, does this solution change anything? Nope.

I have a better one: since problems at the UN have largely been the result of one person, not the team, why don't we keep things as they are and simply limit/prohibit said person from posting at the UN forum? The biggest criticism I have seen here is our attempt to limit the freedoms of everyone because of the actions of an individual. Surprisingly no-one has mentioned that it would only take a poll to prohibit that person from posting at the UN.

-MZ

Last edited by Master Zen on 26-02-2004 at 21:18

	26-02-2004 22:00									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Show me where I lied.

Show me where our team has suffered.

Show me where the other teams have said "Apolyton is a team of asses."

Show me one memeber of this team who does not think of Lucky as an a$$.

While you do not agree with what I have said at times; the amount of 'damage' done by it is little to non-existent. I actually gotten praise from a few people from other teams for what I've said.

	27-02-2004 06:15									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We can't just make this about one person. Most team members feel strongly about one thing or another, and that can always come out at the UN. If we make a rule now to restrict UN posting (or posting on certain issues at the UN at least) then we are putting in preventative measures against all this fuss for everyone but those authorised.

As long as we carefully vet those authorised to post in such roles we will avoid problems in the future. What if we banned BF from posting at the UN and did nothing further? Isn't that almost inviting a repeat from someone else in the future? I challenge most of the members here to not get annoyed at Lucky if you pay close attention to his dealings.

If we make a rule now for the whole team to obey, then we will be better off for it. You may see BF as the only problem now, but does that mean banning him and him alone will solve all our future problems? I bloody well hope not.

	27-02-2004 10:15									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

See, everyone gets annoyed at Lucky. In fact, annoyment is an understatement, some of us get REALLY pissed off. But most of us understand this thing called self-control which stops us from posting the plethora of insults that we would just looooove to hurl their way.

What can we do about it when people insist that Lucky or his cohorts deserve to be blasted in public? That it's their god-given inherent right to insult and provoke at will? We've argued this a gazillion times to no avail.

I ask the citizens: do you all approve of the way BF has expressed himself in the UN? Do you think it is behavior appropriate for a member of Apolyton?

If not, then what do you propose to do about it? If the problem is an individual, you guys have (rightfully) resented a proposal that limits freedom of expression to everyone. However, when I propose we deal with the individual only, you are saying that is wrong also.

Sorry then if I feel we are getting nowhere with this, common sense doesn't work. We can perhaps get a ruling on what precisely is approprate behavior and thus force everyone to abide by that rule. We should also clearly state the consequences of what should happen if someone does not follow this.

Other than that, I honestly see no other solution which is satisfactory to all parties since no-one is willing to either sacrifice their freedom of speech, nor punish those who have crossed the line of tact.

-MZ

	27-02-2004 11:14									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Other than that, I honestly see no other solution which is satisfactory to all parties since no-one is willing to either sacrifice their freedom of speech, nor punish those who have crossed the line of tact. -MZ

But we don't need to go that far - we just need to have some codes of conduct for the UN for all to follow, and in the case where there is some issue to be resolved through diplomatic channels, like the WW or teleportation issue, then we denote those threads as to be posted in by authorised personnel only.

What is so difficult about the concept that the UN is free to all, yet when there is some serious diplomatic negotiations to be undertaken we give over to those who have been given such diplomatic duties? BF is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone here, and yes, even to put it forward how he likes. The ONLY problems, IMO, are where it appears that personal opinions are being taken as team policy or where such personal opinions interfere with a diplomatic discussion, drawing it off course. If we reserve those serious decisions to threads that are verboten to all but those given the job of posting on behalf of Poly there, then the decisions can be made without interruption.

Is this not good enough?

	27-02-2004 12:46									#87
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

well then, I think it's time we define "appropriate behavior" so that everyone be it consuls/ministers/citizens follow it when posting in public.

quote: But we don't need to go that far - we just need to have some codes of conduct for the UN for all to follow, and in the case where there is some issue to be resolved through diplomatic channels, like the WW or teleportation issue, then we denote those threads as to be posted in by authorised personnel only.

I dunno, in this last case there was just one thread where everything, both opinions and positions were discussed. Plus, since everyone can see every thread I don't see how limiting certian threads to "official" posting will avoid people having to read the flames and insults in other threads, done by members of our team.

quote: What is so difficult about the concept that the UN is free to all, yet when there is some serious diplomatic negotiations to be undertaken we give over to those who have been given such diplomatic duties? BF is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone here, and yes, even to put it forward how he likes.

I'm sorry but this is where I draw the line. One thing is free speech and one is embarrasing our team in public. The intention of the last 2 pages of this thread has pretty much been to avoid this and if we don't do anything about it, why bother continuing to argue?

quote: The ONLY problems, IMO, are where it appears that personal opinions are being taken as team policy or where such personal opinions interfere with a diplomatic discussion, drawing it off course. If we reserve those serious decisions to threads that are verboten to all but those given the job of posting on behalf of Poly there, then the decisions can be made without interruption.

again, at the UN most threads are both opinion/decision threads. The other solution is to do all the talking via PM but that's even more elitist and secretive and is totally against the spirit of what we're trying to reform.

-MZ

	27-02-2004 12:54									#88
	Get a bigger avatar today!

A standard of acceptable conduct at the U.N. may be workable. I think you're onto something there, MZ.

That way it applies to everyone and only those who violate it run into problems and lose related privledges.

As for BF, he has specifically stated that if new rules were put down he would adhere to them - BF may not always watch his tongue, but even I would say that his honor is above reproach.

Quite frankly, that's probably the best solution.

	27-02-2004 14:25									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I was going to suggest a code of conduct .. but MWIA beat be by about 1 hour

	27-02-2004 15:38									#90
	Got spare money?

Finally.... back on track...

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel I was going to suggest a code of conduct .. but MWIA beat be by about 1 hour

Must be my timezo- er, never mind

* MrWhereItsAt is in Sydney right now