Obviously, this will depend on the final number of players in the team, but what kind of structure do you guys want?

Personally, I favour a kind of semi-anarchist style where everybody has a say in the next course of action if they want it, otherwise it'll be decided by appointed specialists.

Free for all I'd say.

Free for all I'd say.
Erm... no. Anarchy is bad idea and it will lead to nothing getting done. We won't be organised and it will cost us valuable opportunities during the game. I have an idea for a structure but I'll post it later as I don't have time now.

My Goverment Structure Idea:

First
Thier is a single executive leader
THe Executive leader gets re elected every 2 weeks
The Executive Leader Plays out the turns for the team durring his term
The Executive Leader has power to veto all decisions made by the Executive board

Second
Thier are 3 people in the Executive board
The Executive Board makes the decisions for the team
The decisions made by the Executive Board should be based on the oppinions of the people
Third
The People Vote in polls to show their oppinion
If the people dislike an act of a Executive Board Member or the Executive Leader they can vote in a poll to get the decisions taken back
If it is decided that it is neccessary to remove an Executive Board Member a 2/3 poll will empeach them
Executive leaders can not be empeached
Fourth
In the event that the team feels it is neccessary to tri. a team member The accused will be abel to post his defence in 1 post. And the Acuseing will also get 1 post.
THe team most then vote in a poll open for 3 days.
THe defendent is only guilty if 2/3s of the vote say he is.
THe executive Board will then have 2 days to decide their punsishment if necessary.


Simple, Effective, Strong

That's not at all simple: it will slow down the process quite a lot I would imagine. There is such a thing as being over-organised.

That's not at all simple: it will slow down the process quite a lot I would imagine. There is such a thing as being over-organised.
Woo for depotism. ;)
@ Mr. Future - That's look's good. I had something similar in mind. It somewhat resembles how the Communist party was supposed to work; from the bottom up rather than from the top down, as it became in many countries.

Do we really need an Executive Board? Why couldn't we just go for a single Executive Leader, up for election every 2-3 weeks who plays the turns for the team. He could decide what group of possible actions could be taken and create a poll in which we can argue them and come to a consensus.

Yah, I'm a despotic bastard ;)

I have added: The Executive Leader Plays out the turns for the team durring his term Along with a entire 4th section.

The executive bard is neccessary to keep all of the power out of one person's hands. It instead acts to give the people the most power.

And yes it is very Simple. Would you like to go look at the demogame constitution and then compare them? And if you dislike my idea you could write up your own.

I'm not saying your idea's crap, I just think that the introduction of the Executive Board makes it more complicated (therefore less simple) that it needs to be.

I've already posted my plan but in case you don't understand, I'll do it again:

1.) Executive Leader. Elected every two weeks. Plays all turns for the team. Makes final decision based on team discussion. Makes a thread for each turn in which discussion occurs.

2.) Everyone else. Votes for the executive leader every two weeks. Can impeach him with a two-thirds vote and trigger another election. Discusses course of action in thread created by Executive Leader, comes to a majority decision.

Basically, my idea cuts out the bloat of yours and trusts us to be able to work together to quickly reach a majority decision as to what action to take. If we just bicker and can't agree then the Executive Leader can go over our heads, but we have the recourse of impeaching him. But, seriously, if we can't play nicely and make decisions together then we're never going to win.

I just think the Executive Board (step two) and the whole of step four are a waste of time.

How about every 20 turns instead of every 2 weeks. It makes it smoother. I like ranathari's modified government.

I like ranathari's modified government.
The only worry is that it will turn in to Rome, where one leader will seize power and ignore the 'senate'. Mr. Future's proposal allows a safety net.

No, that's why I've allowed for an impeachment vote. Besides, if someone does start ignoring us and playing turns their way instead (without justification - if we spend several days bickering over an issue then it's perfectly appropriate for the leader to take the initiative) then we can lodge a formal complaint with Ginger_Ale et al and have them warned or removed.

Seriously, I can't see how the hell it'll turn into a Rome-esque situation. For that matter, how the hell would an Executive Board stop that from happening? I'm tempted to call that a Chewbacca argument.

The board is their to put in the real ideas of the people, without it we might as well not have the executive leader and just a player. Hell full fledged Anarchy would work great. And then when people get pissed off because the person playing has nothing to do because of a lack of organization we can just blame it on everyone. THat sounds like a great idea. Noting says we will win like a lack of structure.

Dude, this isn't the Civ3 Demo game: we're going to have a team of 10 of which only five or six are likely to contribute on a regular basis. If we had a team of 20 then I'd back your idea all the way but it's ridiculous for a team of 10.

Dude, this isn't the Civ3 Demo game: we're going to have a team of 10 of which only five or six are likely to contribute on a regular basis. If we had a team of 20 then I'd back your idea all the way but it's ridiculous for a team of 10.
I dont see it as ridiculous. BUt seeing as it is allready obvious we wont get any where we should try and setup a comprimise. Personally I would prefer to see the Executive Leader go more then the Executive board.

EIDT:
On further look I would say taht we could (if neccessary) remove the entire first and second sections and still be left with a functioning goverment entirely people run.

Ok, time to go for a compromise involving everybody's opinion.

I vote for Future's idea just minus the second section.

My Goverment Structure Idea:

First
Thier is a single executive leader
THe Executive leader gets re elected every 2 weeks
The Executive Leader Plays out the turns for the team durring his term
The Executive Leader has power to veto all decisions made by the Executive board

Second
Thier are 3 people in the Executive board
The Executive Board makes the decisions for the team
The decisions made by the Executive Board should be based on the oppinions of the people
Third
The People Vote in polls to show their oppinion
If the people dislike an act of a Executive Board Member or the Executive Leader they can vote in a poll to get the decisions taken back
If it is decided that it is neccessary to remove an Executive Board Member a 2/3 poll will empeach them
Executive leaders can not be empeached
Fourth
In the event that the team feels it is neccessary to tri. a team member The accused will be abel to post his defence in 1 post. And the Acuseing will also get 1 post.
THe team most then vote in a poll open for 3 days.
THe defendent is only guilty if 2/3s of the vote say he is.
THe executive Board will then have 2 days to decide their punsishment if necessary.


Simple, Effective, Strong

im all for this idea

Dude, this isn't the Civ3 Demo game: we're going to have a team of 10 of which only five or six are likely to contribute on a regular basis. If we had a team of 20 then I'd back your idea all the way but it's ridiculous for a team of 10.

Actually, more people might drift in and we could end up with a team of 15. I do see your point though. It seems kind of silly to have an exectutive board to carry out the will of 6 other players, but there's likely to be more soon and the members so far seem to be quite active. I support Mr. Future's idea as it stands.

Dude, this isn't the Civ3 Demo game: we're going to have a team of 10 of which only five or six are likely to contribute on a regular basis. If we had a team of 20 then I'd back your idea all the way but it's ridiculous for a team of 10.

Just chiming in, and not trying to sway your opinions, but yes, this is by far the most crucial point; it is better to start small with something that will definately work, and expand if you feel you can sustain it. Nothing is worse than having nominations go empty. I am the Future, I think, is used to the SPDG (Single Player DemoGame), where there are lots of positions filled consistently; this is different. Things will have to change.

MY Goverment Idea Mark 2

First
Thier is a single executive leader
THe Executive leader gets re elected every 2 weeks
The Executive Leader Plays out the turns for the team durring his term
The Executive Leader's choices in the game must be based on the overall opinion of the people.

Second
The People Vote in polls to show their oppinion
If the people dislike an act of a Executive Board Member or the Executive Leader they can vote in a poll to get the decisions taken back
If it is decided that it is neccessary to remove an Executive Board Member a 2/3 poll will empeach them

Third
In the event that the team feels it is neccessary to tri. a team member The accused will be abel to post his defence in 1 post. And the Acuseing will also get 1 post.
The team most then vote in a poll open for 3 days.
The defendent is only guilty if 2/3s of the vote say he is.
The Executive Leader will then have 2 days to decide their punsishment if necessary.


Comprimised...

OR


My Goverment Idea Mark 3

First
Thier are 3 people in the Executive board
The Executive Board makes the decisions for the team
The decisions made by the Executive Board should be based on the oppinions of the people
The Executive Board is elected every 3 weeks
A player is picked from the Executive Board by the Executive Board to play out the turns

Second
The People Vote in polls to show their oppinion
If the people dislike an act of a Executive Board Member they can vote in a poll to get the decisions taken back
If it is decided that it is neccessary to remove an Executive Board Member a 2/3 poll will empeach them

Third
In the event that the team feels it is neccessary to tri. a team member The accused will be abel to post his defence in 1 post. And the Acuseing will also get 1 post.
THe team most then vote in a poll open for 3 days.
THe defendent is only guilty if 2/3s of the vote say he is.
THe executive Board will then have 2 days to decide their punsishment if necessary.

MY Goverment Idea Mark 2

First
Thier is a single executive leader
THe Executive leader gets re elected every 2 weeks
The Executive Leader Plays out the turns for the team durring his term
The Executive Leader's choices in the game must be based on the overall opinion of the people.

some change i think are needed

there is a single executive leader
Te Executive leader gets re elected every month
One Chosen person chosen by the executive will play the turns for his term in the office

One Chosen person chosen by the executive will play the turns for his term in the office

What's the reasoning behind that?


@Mr. Future - Mark 3 is looking good. We'll have to see what ranathari has to say about it.

okay get rid of the executive board, about 1/2 to 1/7 of the people who sign up are active... Like I said before, I think that terms should be measured in turns like an SG, I think that the executive leader should be called the turnplayer and play the turns himself... more poll/reasonable anarchy idea...

some change i think are needed

there is a single executive leader
Te Executive leader gets re elected every month
One Chosen person chosen by the executive will play the turns for his term in the office
2 weeks is neccessary to keep one person from siezeing power for too long.

THe Executive Leader is the player, this makes it much simpilair.


I am still very partial to Mark 3. Even if 1/7 play their will still be 6 or 7 people who regualarly play. This means that haveing 3 on the board is quite possible. THen the others could be assigned sub jobs like UN ambassador, official poll dude(needs a better name), Secretary(controlls the email), or whatever else is needed.

Another caluse could be put in to cover this part.

OK, compromise two.

We go with Future's idea mk II for the first 10 turns and then hold a referendum as to keep it or change it. Also set a team size limit, which, upon being exceeded, an Executive Board is automatically created.

Agreed, Shall we post a poll for it then?