02-02-2003 01:08									#1
	Friends, Apolytonians, Countrymen... Full PM-box? Change here!

Friends, Apolytonians, Countrymen, lend me your ear!!

As our small and struggling tribe searches to find its way in this challenging new world we find ourself, it is time that we stopped acting like our barbaric neighbours - that we stopped being merely a collection of individuals all living in the same place. Yes, it is time we found a common purpose - time that we have an accepted way of defining that purpose - time that we organized ourselves - and time that we had a leader. In short, my friends, we need this thing called government.

So, I will step down from this box shortly, and turn the floor over to whomever wants to speak next. My only suggestion regarding this new government thing is this - let's keep it relatively straightforward.

Ah, and I see that my neighbour now wants to speak. Please come up here ....

	02-02-2003 01:25									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

One basic matter to be decided, it seems to me, is whether we have a written constitution or not. While I think we will need one eventually, I wonder whether it is needed immediately. The early game is fairly quick, with relatively few decisions to be made, and I think we can trust each other to listen to all arguments and sims and accept the best proposal. Right now, we simply need to elect a moderator/forum manager (you're doing fine right now BH ) and some turnplayers (preferably from different timezones). And this brings up another point: has there been discussion of how fast this game should go?

At any rate, if and when we do want a constitution, the SPDG's is a nice framework; though there are some things tailored to that game's situation (the ministers, the difference in poll rights between Citizen-Cabinet Members and Citizen-Senators), I think it could be adopted with only some changes here and there.

	02-02-2003 03:39									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Posted by Togas in a similar thread.

In the PTW team games each team seems to have created its own unique style of government, something that I found extremely fascinating. We are likely to have some very different perspectives on how to run our team in this game, and discussion should start on this immediately.

The most important consideration, IMO, is that we are under a time limit. We cannot postpone decisions for days to allow everyone to vote on them, as the turn needs to be played within 24 hours of us receiving it, and any emergencies that happen during that turn must be resolved within that short time frame.

We must find a way to balance democractic ideals with a strong executive.

--Togas

	02-02-2003 06:22									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kloreep At any rate, if and when we do want a constitution, the SPDG's is a nice framework; though there are some things tailored to that game's situation (the ministers, the difference in poll rights between Citizen-Cabinet Members and Citizen-Senators), I think it could be adopted with only some changes here and there.

I can work up a preliminary Constitution taken from the Demo Game, and cut down in great detail for this game.

IMO, our President/Turn Player needs to have the authority to make any decisions in the case of emergencies or surprises, or where there were no instructions. He would follow the orders of the ministers and people in all normal situations.

--Togas

	02-02-2003 06:53									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

One of the things we found useful was to decide everything in advance.

This way we have time to debate and discuss stuff BEFORE it comes up, and when it does come up we already know how we are going to react to it.

Unfortunately, this has made us very impatient with other teams because we already knew what our answer was going to be and we have to wait for them to debate their position.

	02-02-2003 07:16									#6
	Support Apolyton

One crucial thing: a very effective foreign ministry. As the Foreign Affairs Consul for the Glory of War, I know how hectic and confusing things can be. It also takes several turns to work out deals, instead of just one turn in SP.

	02-02-2003 08:05									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree, foreign affairs wil be critical. Most DM stuff can be planned well in advance (while allows emergency decisions to be made in an emergency). One thing that will be critical, We must keep track of all deals in an orderly manner, especially since MANY deals will be made that wont show up in the game itself (like: don't move units closer than X squares from my city, etc.) The last thing we need is for a deal to be made for certian units to be moved away, yet the person making the game moves and DM don't get wind of it soon enough and move said units in a manner that the think we have broken a treaty.

	02-02-2003 08:30									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Panzer32 One crucial thing: a very effective foreign ministry. As the Foreign Affairs Consul for the Glory of War, I know how hectic and confusing things can be. It also takes several turns to work out deals, instead of just one turn in SP.

This is THE most important job, period. Aside from deal making, how we handle the other teams, how we present ourselves, how we negotiate, what sort of creative deals we come up with, and what information we make public WILL make or break our game.

Cooperation between this office and the leader is critical, as is communication about what is going on.

--Togas

	02-02-2003 20:47									#9
	Tired of ads?

"We must find a way to balance democractic ideals with a strong executive.

--Togas"


How about a set-up where we have 3 players - or executive officers - who play the game. (time zones a major consideration here) They are directed by the President and a Vice-President. The President's office is responsible for overseeing, guiding, and collecting input from the other main offices - the key one yes - being foreign affairs, as well as economic development/domestic management, and the military.

In terms of timing, I expect this game will move at about the same pace as the ptw-demo game - say 24-30 hours per turn. That will mean that we do indeed need to have major decisions hashed out prior to the turn. But it also means we have to give the President's office the power and discretion to make key decisions when it is our turn to play. Some stuff just won't get settled in time.

So, I would see the three offices - economic development, FA, and the military, holding didcussions and posting polls for input from the team. The president may also post a poll or start a discussion on something he/she feels needs to be worked out. The president is responsible for collecting the info and guidance from the three branches, and passing the info on to the executive officers for the turn play. Given that there will be competing priorities, or even conflicting directions, the presiident is responsible for resolving these via polls or his/her own decision. He can and should consult with the VP.

Elections - once a month? or after a certain number of turns? May I also suggest we do them on a rolling basis. In other words, don't have all the positions chnage at once, for the sake of continuity.

How about this - we hold elections to start - for the five positions - Pres, VP, Domestic Minister (DM), Foreign Affairs Minister (FAM), Supreme Military Commander (SPC). After one month we start elections on a weekly basis - first week say DM, second week, Pres, third week SMC, and fourth VP, fifth, FAM. The we start over.

Another possibility is that after the initial Presidential elections, we do not elect a new president - only VP's, and that the previous VP becomes president, who then steps down.This would also help ensure continuity.

As for the 'players' - hmmm - not sure.

And we will need some way of sharing info and maps with the rest of the team for informed discussions and decision making.

	02-02-2003 21:30									#10
	Suffering from ads?

We could have the three players be "Ministers of State" whose sole job is to play the turn per the orders/instructions given them.

The President/Vice President's job would be to see that the orders/instructions are compiled and ready.

	02-02-2003 21:32									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb One of the things we found useful was to decide everything in advance. This way we have time to debate and discuss stuff BEFORE it comes up, and when it does come up we already know how we are going to react to it. Unfortunately, this has made us very impatient with other teams because we already knew what our answer was going to be and we have to wait for them to debate their position.

hi ,

, maybe we could learn them to debate in front , .....

Betahound , maps , info , etc , .... well right here in these forums

have a nice day

	03-02-2003 00:10									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I believe that because of the nature of this game, The government should be more constant. Thus, I believe that every 2 months is enough for elections.

On this topic, I'm not sure a truly democratic system is the right way to go. A truly democratic system is full of bureaucracy - as the SP demogame proves. Bureaucracy is bad in MP - trades etc. get delayed while turns go on. Personally, I feel that we should have a first election for positions, then have no scheduled elections. At any time, someone can call a no-confidence vote on any of the elected members. In this no-con vote, the person would propose a replacement person (can be themselves), and the poll would take on the appearance of an election poll (Previous Candidate, replacement, abstain). If the previous candidate won, then he would continue in the office. If the replacement won, he would take over the office.

If an elected person wanted to 'reitre', then they could search for a possible replacement, and then propose a no-con vote on themselves.

No-confidence seems a rather harsh term; but maybe replacement vote should be used, so people don't feel like they are insulting the person they are calling a no-con vote on.


Of course, this might not be 'democratic' enough for some people, so they might be too scared to implement it. These are my thoughts, please discuss.

	03-02-2003 00:21									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Panzer32 No-confidence seems a rather harsh term; but maybe replacement vote should be used, so people don't feel like they are insulting the person they are calling a no-con vote on.

I dont know, we could call it a "Get Rid of the Jerk Vote".

	03-02-2003 00:22									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Panzer32 On this topic, I'm not sure a truly democratic system is the right way to go. A truly democratic system is full of bureaucracy - as the SP demogame proves. Bureaucracy is bad in MP - trades etc. get delayed while turns go on. Personally, I feel that we should have a first election for positions, then have no scheduled elections. At any time, someone can call a no-confidence vote on any of the elected members.

This is an excellent idea. I'd back something along these lines. It's a bit more in the style that my team uses and the continuity helps a lot. No need for impeachments or constant reelections. Change leaders only when necessary or if someone better steps forward.

--Togas

	03-02-2003 00:55									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hmm, but then it wouldn't be a democracy game really.
And we ought to call it something else.

Anyway, there should be some polls soon, regarding the government style. I am an anti-beuraucat, but also I support the strong democratic principles. (when its possible)



BTW: Which sites will represent our human opponents,
and how many AI opponents are there?

Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 03-02-2003 at 01:02

	03-02-2003 01:05									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ok, was just chatting with some people about potential leaders who would be involved in FAM stuff (as opposed to DM and SMC stuff). Here's the "long list":

adaMada
Apocalypse
Arnelos
Aro
BigFurryMonster
GeneralTacticus
GodKing
jdjdjd
Kloreep
ManicStarSeed
Meshelic
MrWhereItsAt
Nimitz
Ninot
notyoueither
Sheik
Shiber
Spiffor
Thud
Togas
UnOrthOdOx
WhiteBandit

Of those, definate preferences of FAM/executive leader are toward:

notyoueither
MrWhereItsAt
Ninot
Thud
Apocalypse

Most of those 5 have serious time issues, unfortunately.

There are a lot of very talented people NOT on the above lists and with good reason. Some people are better at micromanaging our invasions or our cities, others are better at not shooting our site in the foot. Putting each group where they are best able to serve the overall interests of Apolyton would be best.

	03-02-2003 01:05									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't see any reason why would those 3 persons who play the game be somebody else than the President or VP. Playing the turn is not a big fuss. Actually if somebody gives you the instructions (the Pres, the Senate, etc) what do you have to do? Press enter?

I agree that there shoud be 3 people who could have the authority to play the game, but those could be the President, the Vice President and ... one more VP or a General Secretary or one player named by the Senate or the Foreign Minister, whatever. The President could name the VP (from a different time zone) while the Senate could elect/appoint the 3rd player. These Ministers of State, this High Council could do all the jobs Beta described earlier: playing the turns, overseeing, guiding, and collecting input from the ministers, posting polls about conlicting issues and so on. Of course, they would spilt the duties between them. In cases of emergency they would have the right to decide alone directions of action.

The chain of command would be:
1. Senate
2. Government
3. High Council
4. President

- The most powerful would be the Senate. All of their orders would be law and would be followed.
- The ministers are those who plan, explain and decide (if the Senate doesn't interfere) what are the next steps of action in their field of expertise.
- The High Council, well, I described it earlier. They could veto decisions of the ministers or act in the absence of such orders.
- The President would act alone if the Senate, the ministers or the High Council didn't give specific orders or are unavailable, and so forth.

Or maybe the High Council shouldn't have exceptional powers (veto and such) to avoid overcomplicated and/or too lenghty decision taking procedures.

As for the ministers: except for the first 1 or 2 month maybe, 3 ministers are too few. The economic development/domestic management ministry should be split exactly in those 2 directions: economic developement and domestic and scientific management. So in total 4 ministers, with the possibility of naming later deputies, should the ministerial duties become overwhelming.

Just my 2 cents.

Edit: typos

Last edited by Tiberius on 03-02-2003 at 01:30

	03-02-2003 01:07									#18
	Suffering from ads?

As for those best suited to micromanging our troops and cities... any chance we can get some of the heavyweights from the Strategy Forum and specifically the Apolyton University to get their butts over here and help out?

I mean... much of the reason why Apolyton HAS a reputation is those guys... reason would dictate that it only makes sense that they should play a role in defending it!

	03-02-2003 01:16									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb One of the things we found useful was to decide everything in advance. This way we have time to debate and discuss stuff BEFORE it comes up, and when it does come up we already know how we are going to react to it.

Absolutely. The problem is you need people devoted to think, plan and sometimes test things in advance. There are unfortunately very few people who would/could do this. Unless of course Markos would pay us to win this game

Edit: doh, pay us, not play us.

	03-02-2003 01:26									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Speaking of leaders:

Since he is officially member of our team, I suggest electing MarkG as Honorary President of Apolyton in this demogame (of course, unless he is willing and has the time to accept more responsibility within the team).

	03-02-2003 01:34									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius Absolutely. The problem is you need people devoted to think, plan and sometimes test things in advance. There are unfortunately very few people who would/could do this.

We have plenty of people who look at the save and analyze potential moves of the opposing teams.

The biggest concern I have is the division of their effort amongst the PTW Democracy game, the Civ3 Democracy Game and the Intersite Democracy Game.

	03-02-2003 01:37									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Panzer32 Of course, this might not be 'democratic' enough for some people, so they might be too scared to implement it. These are my thoughts, please discuss.

I think some of your ideas are fine.
I can agree on the 2-months terms, between elections.

The principle of the democratic system is that we can choose our representative whom we know will listen to us, the voters, and does the decisions we cannot practically do ourself.
(IRL: a representative democracy, the most common variant )

So the leader might be a moron with just a little game experience, but as long as he knows that his job is to listen to what the people suggest and the plans they produce, things will work out fine. We are many people here with MP experience, who will contribute to the best decisions on many different fields.
(in the senate, war acadamy, thinkers guild, diplomats, etc.)


Sometimes the leaders listens to the wrong advisors (he might have someone closer than others cause of an earlier game, etc.)
he might choose him as an unofficial favourite, and suddenly they start to mess things up together. Thats why we always need a leader who creates discussions and polls on long term strategic issues, on a regular basis. ( perhaps make it a const. duty?! )


The problem occurs when someone gets too stubborn to listen to the great ideas his people lay afore him, and goes on some solo run, with or without help. Some people who get elected can have problems coping with that position and the whole power-issue, so he looses his teammate sense, and puts himself above others.
Especially if the forum is about to lose vitality, and fewer people make polls. Then the whole game gets pointless, at least the democracy part of it. Elections on a regular basis showed up to work just fine in the C3DG, as long as enough candidates appeared. (but just that is the core problem there)


So we are a team who chooses a leader to work with us, and not a leader who just runs us.

	03-02-2003 01:40									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb We have plenty of people who look at the save and analyze potential moves of the opposing teams.

It is not only the potential moves of the enemy, but also optimum moves of our own team (even minor things such as mine or irrigate, granary or settler, and so on).

quote: The biggest concern I have is the division of their effort amongst the PTW Democracy game, the Civ3 Democracy Game and the Intersite Democracy Game.

Absolutely.

	03-02-2003 01:44									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius It is not only the potential moves of the enemy, but also optimum moves of our own team (even minor things such as mine or irrigate, granary or settler, and so on).

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb The biggest concern I have is the division of their effort amongst the PTW Democracy game, the Civ3 Democracy Game and the Intersite Democracy Game.

Hee hee.

Now if you hadn't voted against me in the Civ3DG election, I wouldn't have so much time to micromanage stuff for the Domestic Ministry on the RP Team, now would I?

	03-02-2003 01:55									#25
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos As for those best suited to micromanging our troops and cities... any chance we can get some of the heavyweights from the Strategy Forum and specifically the Apolyton University to get their butts over here and help out? I mean... much of the reason why Apolyton HAS a reputation is those guys... reason would dictate that it only makes sense that they should play a role in defending it!

Arnelos - great idea! There was an announcement on the Main Civ3 page by Mark, but some may still have missed it. But many are on ptw-demo teams (velocyrix and nbarclay of GS, for example), and I advertised on that forum. If the more established members such as yourself approached them individually, they may reconsider. On the other hand - we have a wealth of Civ3 knowledge and experience with the current team.

	03-02-2003 02:02									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos Hee hee. Now if you hadn't voted against me in the Civ3DG election, I wouldn't have so much time to micromanage stuff for the Domestic Ministry on the RP Team, now would I?

Who are you talking to? GhengisFarb or me (you quoted us both) ? Because I didn't vote in the Civ3DG election; you know, I'm not a member of the Civ3DG

	03-02-2003 02:09									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos As for those best suited to micromanging our troops and cities... any chance we can get some of the heavyweights from the Strategy Forum and specifically the Apolyton University to get their butts over here and help out? I mean... much of the reason why Apolyton HAS a reputation is those guys... reason would dictate that it only makes sense that they should play a role in defending it!

Aeson, Sir Ralph, Theseus ... In case you didn't notice, they are all members of our team. Now, if we could convince a few more: Catt, Velocyrix ...

	03-02-2003 02:19									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius Aeson, Sir Ralph, Theseus ... In case you didn't notice, they are all members of our team. Now, if we could convince a few more: Catt, Velocyrix ...

And yes, I was glad to see them join. And yes, a few more would be welcome.

	03-02-2003 02:20									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius Who are you talking to? GhengisFarb or me (you quoted us both) ? Because I didn't vote in the Civ3DG election; you know, I'm not a member of the Civ3DG

GhengisFarb knows I'm talking to him.

	03-02-2003 02:21									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius I don't see any reason why would those 3 persons who play the game be somebody else than the President or VP. Playing the turn is not a big fuss. Actually if somebody gives you the instructions (the Pres, the Senate, etc) what do you have to do? Press enter?

Things happen between turns that you didn't expect. Offers, enemy movement, barbarians, and so forth. Decisions have to be made and the save must be sent on. The decisions cannot be polled on. The individual(s) who play the turn must be given authority to make changes as required, and we have to trust the decisions made.

The way I see it, the ministers' orders will be "recommendations" that the President/Turn Player should follow, unless something changes.

This game, unlike our Dem Game, will require an executive with a great deal of autonomy and authority.

Personally, I'd be very pleased to see one of our resident experts step forward and take the lead in this game. Someone who can adequately represent the great Apolyton reputation to the outside world.

--Togas