 |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
yes
if we feel the ened to go for war, we will take a excursion to horseback riding
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beta
|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
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)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wittlich
|
 |
A Wyandot lost in "The City" SF,CA
Dec 2000
time: 21:24
|
|
And here are my answers:
1. 10 Turns sounds good to me.
2. Since the job of being The Controller is going to rotate, term limits shouldn't be an issue. However, we can say that person can only be Controller for 2 consecutive terms just to be safe.
3. C.
4. Foreign Relations: I think having a Foreign Minister (Voice for Foreign Affairs - VFA) is a good idea, but it would have to be someone who has a lot of contact with the other teams (ie, through the forums). I think this position should be a permanent one - Would Jon Miller mind assuming the permanent position of VFA, since he is the one who is responsible for getting Vox Controli together in the first place?
5. Does he, or they, need to consult with the team before negotiating? I depends on what's being negotiated.
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??? See answer 4. Make it a permanent position.
7. And most importantly - in the votes - can you vote for yourself? Yes.
8. In the non-confidence votes - does the current controller get a vote. Yes, the current controller would get 2 votes, everybody else would have 1 vote each.
9 Speaking of which - how do we break ties in the elections (recount Florida?). If there is a tie on a no confidence vote, then the vote failed the current controller remains in control.
10. Or how about a new position - VIM - Voice of Internal Matters? No. Remember, we are only 6 people, we really don't need all these extra titles/jobs to make our team work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
All the elections and no confidence stuff arent needed, they just add animosity between the players.
How I think we should run:
We should select a controller, randomly, or just by agreement(some will want to play first, some wont, etc). This controller will play for X turns*.
Now, at the very beginning of the game we are having at least 48 hours breaks between turns. Later on, when many will be using the 24 hours limit we will play once in 4-6 days.
So we'll be having more than enough time to discuss everything in the forums. The controller will have to follow our decisions, so the no confidence thingie wont be needed.
The controller will have some freedom, but not in the early game.
Everything too minor to be effectively discussed in the forums will be left in the controller's hands. For example, workers(when we have a lot of cities and workers), exploring troops, sometime even city building queues, etc.
Major decisions like relations, research, direction of expansion, trade, new city locations, will all be discussed in the forums.
The only mistakes the controller will be able to make are those concerning workers, and in this case we should just explain him what he did wrong. There is no need for grandiose impeachments.
The difference in this system is that it's less dependent on the controller, and more on the team. When the controller makes most of the decisions, long term projects might not get accomplished because of the switches. This way, the controller is not the ruler who sometimes reports to the team, but the messenger of the team.
* - If the game goes too slowly, 10 turns might take a month or two.
I propose implementing a top limit. Every controller will play maximum 15 days OR 5 turns, whatever comes FIRST.
As explained in the previous paragraph, the controller is only a messenger of the team, so relatively rapid change of controllers will not affect the game.
The above numbers can change, since they depend on the pace of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think that makes sense for now
later we can implement the controler idea (when we ahve more cities than it is feasible to come to a consensus on)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
BTW, I was imagining no confidence for stuff like running a war badly
if it is a large war, I know that I would not want to come to a consensus on every movement, but there are diffinitely bad movements, so there is reason for no confidence
I didn't expect it to be used much (if at all)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-11-2002 21:00
. Poll? suggestions?
')
|