How shall we structure this team?

Do we go for a represenative government or should we go for a SG type of Government where anyone who has the time can play the save?

Anyone who plays the save must be able to give great detail on what things happened on your turn and give pictures to demonstrat what is going on with your turn.

I actualy think that we should go on with a SG type of government because we should be all competent players and those who do not think they can play, just leave it up to those who think they can and that way we can just have a general discussion about team affairs rather than having one for each particular of the team.

I think a Rep Govt ... it is more inclusive.

Also would an SG type of game lead to the possibility of more than one player taking the turn ... ummm ... perhaps not if they posted.

I like the idea of a designated Turn Taker ... being advised by Ministers, which in turn have active discussions with the membership ... all positions would hold office for a term of X turns ... in MIA the value of X was 20.

A good number ... which could of course be changed ... but better not to have too low a number since that would lead to perpetual elections.

I would really prefer a representative government, much like the one that exists for MIA. In fact, I would like to see the system that General_W has designed. For reference, here is what he proposed in the Introduction thread:

In many ways, Civ4 is a much deeper game than Civ3 is. (Which is a good thing! imho)

As a result, we have the option to include many more people in the decision making process than we did in the Civ3 MTDG. (Where there are only 4 positions that make any real decisions)

I'd like to propose a government structure that I think is simple and involves the maximum number of people with the minimum number of elections.

I propose a system of 4 Officers/Ministers, and 12 Departments.
Officers will be elected, but won't necessarily make any decisions. Officers will appoint Department Heads, and these Department Heads will make the decisions. An officer may fill 1 or more department positions if they are empty, or if the officer just wants the job. This will obviously be a major point of consideration in the elections.
Department Heads report to the Officer, and then the President plays the save.

Here's the specifics:

Office of the President (turn player)
Department of Nomenclature (responsible for naming things)
Civics Department (responsible for choosing empire civics)
Counsel on Religion (responsible for choosing state religion – if any. Manages all missionary units)

Office of the Domestic Ministry
Department of Industry (chooses what to build in each city)
Department of the Interior (moves workers, and chooses tile improvements)
Department of Great People (manages allocation and use of great people)
Department of the Economy (sets sliders, chooses research, manages culture)

Office of the Defense Ministry
Department of the Army (responsible for all Land and Air units after they are built)
Department of the Navy (responsible for all naval units after they are built)
War Academy (chooses all unit upgrades when units are promoted)

Office of the Foreign Ministry:
Department of State (manages diplomacy. War, peace, and all treaties)
Department of Trade (responsible for resource, gold, and technology trading)


As you can see – there's a lot to do and decide in Civ4!

I think the beauty of my proposed system is that it's perfectly scaleable with the amount of involvement that we have.

If there are only 4 active people, then the officers can just run each department.
If there are 16 active people that all want to make decisions, they can each hold an important office.

An example of how this might work:
General_W runs for Domestic Minister, promising to appoint Peter to be head of the Dept. of the Interior, and Fe to head of the Departments of Great People and Economy. He announces he will retain personal control over the Dept. of Industry.

He is elected in a landslide, of course, but 5 turns later, Peter still hasn't showed up for work, so General_W (who has been running the Dept. of the Interior in the meantime) fires Peter, and appoints Chamnix to replace him.

Hopefully that illustrates how this system could involve lots of people without crashing the team when people go missing (as we've seen people do in the Civ3 MTDG).

I'll stop there for now.

What do you think?
(If you have questions regarding how Civ4 works - feel free to ask! If this were Civ3, some of my proposed departments wouldn't exist or wouldn't have much to do – but in Civ4 they are quite important. For example, workers now have MANY more choices of what to build, and those choices have sweeping effects on the game)

I, too, am leaning towards General_W's proposal. However, I think that could easily be incorporated into a Succession Game format for turn-taking.

But how many of us can actually open and play the save here? My impression is that there are only a few people who are even able to play cIV.

If there's one lesson I've learned from my experience in the civ3 game, it's that organization and structure have powerful results against teams that are less coordinated. Just consider what happens when team A is striving for a goal, while team B zig-zags among two (or even three) courses of action. Team B will eventually achieve their goals, but Team A will be much further ahead by then.

So if we go with a SG style of play, each turn-taker must adhere to the plan of action the team has agreed upon. Anarchy is not profitable.

I think General_W's system is too 'public service'

Keep it simple with 6 elections

> President (Turn Taker)
> Defense
> Domestic
> Foreign
> Nomenclature

> UN Representative.

Then each Minister can sub divide as they wish or not wish. ... players will certainly be involved and included whether they hold a title or not ... I'm sure there will be lively questionings and analysis in the turn discussion threads.

Reasoning ... in MIA we had an extended Foreign Department, but that soon became unwieldy due to various reasons (shhhh ... we have other Teams here as well ;)) ... and then others were tried and discarded until we came up with a very easy system ... one minister who call rule their department as they wish ... and then the position goes back to the polls.

I aslo split Nomenclature into it's own ministry ... that way those you can't play the game have something to aspire too if they wish.

Basically a SG format will make this more of team environment so that those who do not have the time to take on the responsibility of playing a set number of turns and it will mean that the one discussion will only need to take place because many issues that do take place oftencross the bounds of one ministerial position.

it will mean that the one discussion will only need to take place because many issues that do take place oftencross the bounds of one ministerial position

Could you explain this more? I don't think I understand it, as it appears to say that we should just have one discussion thread and one person to decide everything, because having several ministers with several threads is too confusing! :crazyeye:

I'm very opposed to a SG style of government. I think building long-term strategies and consistency is very important to do well in Civ… the anarchy and repeated changes in Civ playing philosophy that happen in a SG style will really handicap us I think.
Structure fosters more dialogue, more consistency, and better long-term strategies. Therefore, I strongly favor a structured government of some kind!

I had a good talk with Fe this morning on AIM about how to structure the government.

We still disagree a bit, but I'd like to propose a compromise, and see what people think.

Compromise Republic Government Form:
Executive Summary:
* Nomenclature split into its own elected office (this will be a fun position and it'll be better to let people get elected rather than be appointed)

* Officers run all of their departments by default. Officers can appoint a "Department Head" if they would like to – but that's no longer the default position. Why even have departments then? 2 Reasons… 1) to help better organize discussion on Civ4's many new strategic options and 2) to encourage Elected Officers to involve other interested and motivated people to participate by making clear areas where an Elected Officer can spin-off part of their duties.

So this is how the Government Structure would look:
Office of the President (turn player)
Civics Department (responsible for choosing empire civics)
Counsel on Religion (responsible for choosing state religion – if any. Manages all missionary units)

Office of the Domestic Ministry
Department of Industry (chooses what to build in each city)
Department of the Interior (moves workers, and chooses tile improvements)
Department of Great People (manages allocation and use of great people)
Department of the Economy (sets sliders, chooses research, manages culture)

Office of the Defense Ministry
Department of the Army (responsible for all Land and Air units after they are built)
Department of the Navy (responsible for all naval units after they are built)
War Academy (chooses all unit upgrades when units are promoted)

Office of the Foreign Ministry:
Department of State (manages diplomacy. War, peace, and all treaties)
Department of Trade (responsible for resource, gold, and technology trading)

Office of Nomenclature (responsible for naming things)

UN Representative

Looking forward to feedback!

I really like it ... excellent point about it being a new game ... so we can have players 'researching' various elements of the game engine :thumbsup: ... something that would not be happeniing in the SG (You don't have to be telepathic nor Empathic even to realise that I am against the SG Turn Taker concept :lol:)



Thinking that another 'appointed' position could be under Prezident or Foreign ... basically someone to record and analyse the game score and related screens F-11, Populations in the Cities as seen from the Map, etc.

EDIT ... maybe self analysis of team could be Prezident and then intel on other teams and comparisons be Foreign department.

I like the revised format, General!

I also would like to see a position for a team historian. Perhaps we could change the Nomenclature office to the "Office of Academics" and it could include departments for Nomenclature, History, and News.

I fully support General_W's outlines, and, just to make certain everyone know where I stand: I only support the SG format if the decision making aspect is subsumed beneath G_W's outlined structure. We cannot have lone rangers making choices that go against the determinations of elected officials. That would undermine the whole element of accountability.

Also, I like the idea of an Office of Academics. For one thing, the Historian aspect is really useful as a summary of events, turn by turn, for each department.

Unless there are other offerings for government structure, I think this is a great template and we can start a poll in a few days.

Hi everyone. :wavey:

In this type of game the worst thing that could happen is if you concentrate too much power into a single person, and then they disappear. Therefore I favor redundancy at all levels.

Here is a modified form of General_W's compromise government:


Office of the President (plays the game, resolves disputes between the 3 ministries, fills in any orders that the ministries missed)
Designated Player Pool (keeps the game moving if the President is absent)

Office of the Domestic Ministry
Civics Department (responsible for choosing empire civics)
Department of Industry (chooses what to build in each city)
Department of the Interior (moves workers, and chooses tile improvements)
Department of Culture (decides wonder and great people priorities)
Department of Science (sets science slider, chooses research)
Counsel on Religion (responsible for choosing state religion, if any. Manages all missionary units)

Office of the Defense Ministry
Department of the Army (responsible for all Land and Air units after they are built)
Department of the Navy (responsible for all naval units after they are built)
War Academy (chooses all unit upgrades when units are promoted)

Office of the Foreign Ministry
Department of State (manages diplomacy. War, peace, and all treaties)
Department of Trade (responsible for resource, gold, and technology trading)
Department of Propaganda (writes news releases for the other teams to read)


Office of Records
Department of Nomenclature (responsible for naming things)
Department of History (summarizes each turn)

UN Representative

Just thought of something ... I have noticed in the other MTDGs that some elements of the game are ignored ... eg Embassies and then later the Espionage options.

In order to take advantage of these game elements, and also to possibly spive things up ... what about giving Domestic, Defence and Foreign more control over the spending.

Not sure if this is governance structure or not ... but I like the idea of some easy to understand and impliment budget system ... could be fun. :D

As in RL, each ministry would have their own private purse.

I see it in order of importance

A purse that requires the relivant minister approval.
1. Domestic ... 10% per turn + 10% Goody Hut and Economic City Improvements
2. Defence ... 10% per turn + 10% Pillage
3. Foreign ... 5% per turn rounded down + 20% commission on Diplomatic Deals

I know on first sight this seems unwieldy :rolleyes: ... but maybe one of our economist RLers can come up with better implimentation ... or not.

The short ... a system that allows ministerial discretion ... Defence can cash rush a unit, Foreign build an embassy or bribe intel at a diplomatic meeting, etc.

The turn based income only comes into effect at a certain level of income every turn has been reached ... or perhaps the discretionary purses come from foreign dealings, barb cleansing and goody hut gifts.

Anyway a thought ... and from someone that dosn't even have cIV :lol:

hmm. I like the idea, fe! But since I'm quite tired at the moment, I'll put my 2 cents worth on possible implementation in the morning when I'm at work (8 hours from now).

Just a quick comment: The simpler, the better. We can always let our system evolve to reflect different game situations later on. But right now we just need to get a simple implementation in place.

I think the outline that DaveMcW proposed based on General_W's is a fine place to start. We'll have all game long to complicate it up ;)

Okay my thoughts on a budget:

The President's office determines the amount allocated to each department per turn, in order to avoid argument among the ministers. It is expected that the President would understand the importance of allocating funds to each department. If the people end up not being happy with the budget, the president would be responsible and maybe not elected.

Anything that is related to the departments is allocated at 50% to them. For example, if a barb hut is cleared by fighting, the defense ministry gets 50% of the gold, and then the other 50% is placed in the overall pool for discretionary spending. If the foreign department strikes a deal for gold, they get 50% of the gold.

When the departments have their own funds to spend, it allows them to make decisions fully, rather than suggesting a use of funds to the president.

I fully support the idea of a budget.

Giving the president control of the budget is a good idea.

I wouldn't bother with this 50% stuff. The first-term officers won't be able to cash rush anyway, leaving them nothing to do with the gold.

I need some definite Ideas about this so that we can poll this. It looks like we will have a representative type Government and it appears that I am in the minority for an anarchy type government, pehaps the only one to want to go this way, so which proposals are we looking at?

Dave- It is true that the first term officers won't be able to use the gold, but they can save up the gold for future spending.

C-H - I think we have only Gen_W's revised format (including a department of academics or humanities or whatever we decide to call it), and Dave's structure (which is actually just a modified version of Gen_w's). I think we've just been changing that one around.

Ignoring the Budget idea ... I think we are suggesting a structure as follows ... please correct if incorrect

Elected Positions
>President (Turn Taker)
>Domestic Minister
>Defence Minister
>Foreign Minister
>Records (Nomenclature, Turn History, Analysis)
>UN Representative (also oversees elections)

Do we like 20 turn terms for each position ???

Assuming yes ... who will start on the Team Rules ???

The poll could simply be "Do you like GW's plan, or DMW's plan, or niether?"

If half the votes are for niether, then we start over. But if less than half is for niether, then we go with the plan that has the majority of the remainder, as those two plans are incredibly similar.

To be honest, I'm not even sure how they are different. But maybe I need to reread them more carefully :)

I've actually been working on writing a draft constitution to submit here for debate and modification.
(Hope to be done this week)

But since this discussion is progressing, I'll submit the outline I'm using now for consideration.

Remember – under my proposed constitution, all the departments are just placeholders for the responsibilities of each elected officer. The elected official will perform the duties of each department, unless they'd like to appoint someone to manage the department for them.

On the Budget:
I like the idea of having a budget, and have, in-fact, created a "department of the budget" under the President in my proposal. In the early game, this office won't really have anything to do – unless they want to divide up our stockpile among various departments. But I don't think the constitution needs to specify when or how the budget is handled. Suffice to say, the Budget Department can make it as simple or complicated as they want as the game goes along.

On Designated Player Pool:
I've covered this in the "Chain of Command" section of my proposed constitution. Rather than a separate chain of people, the CoC will flow through the elected ministers. Seems like the most fair way to ensure the will of the people is carried out.

On Elections:
I'm going to propose elections every 20 turns. I think we could certainly go longer between elections, but it will give us something to do in the beginning when things are slow!

And without further ado, here's the outline of my work-in-progress proposal:
(I inserted some comments where I think some department functions may not be clear)

The Constitution.
Article Index:
I – Authority & Team Name
1) The Constitution
2) Team Name

II – Government Structure & Elections
1) Citizens
2) Leadership
3) Leadership Authority and Chain of Command
4) Election Rules
5) Impeachment and Recalls
6) Special Referendums

III – Government Offices & Departments

1) The Office of the President
A) The President
B) Department of Civics
C) Department Council on Religion
D) Department of Imperial Expansion (Where to build new cities)
E) Department of the Budget (How to spend gold stockpile)

2) The Office of Domestic Policy
A) The Chief Domestic Officer
B) Department of Industry
C) Department of the Interior
D) Department of Great People
E) Department of Economy (Tax, Science, and Culture)

3) The Office of Imperial Defense
A) The Secretary General of Defense
B) Department of the Army
C) Department of the Navy
D) Department of the War Academy

4) The Office of the Foreign Ministry
A) Chief Foreign Minister
B) Department of State
C) Department of Trade
D) Department of Intelligence and Analysis (Comparative F11 Stats and spying)

5) The Office of the Humanities
A) The Provost
B) Department of Nomenclature
C) Department of History
D) Department of News (Internal and External)
E) Department of Elections & Oversight

6) The Office of UN Relations
A) Ambassador to the UN

IV. Everything Else
1) Amending the Constitution
2) ?

@General_W: Do you dislike all my proposed changes, or did you just not read them yet?

@DaveMcW: I'm sorry! I meant to address all of your proposals more specifically – I just forgot in the midst of posting the above.

DaveMcW's proposal for reference:
Office of the President (plays the game, resolves disputes between the 3 ministries, fills in any orders that the ministries missed)
Designated Player Pool (keeps the game moving if the President is absent)

Office of the Domestic Ministry
Civics Department (responsible for choosing empire civics)
Department of Industry (chooses what to build in each city)
Department of the Interior (moves workers, and chooses tile improvements)
Department of Culture (decides wonder and great people priorities)
Department of Science (sets science slider, chooses research)
Counsel on Religion (responsible for choosing state religion, if any. Manages all missionary units)

Office of the Defense Ministry
Department of the Army (responsible for all Land and Air units after they are built)
Department of the Navy (responsible for all naval units after they are built)
War Academy (chooses all unit upgrades when units are promoted)

Office of the Foreign Ministry
Department of State (manages diplomacy. War, peace, and all treaties)
Department of Trade (responsible for resource, gold, and technology trading)
Department of Propaganda (writes news releases for the other teams to read)

Office of Records
Department of Nomenclature (responsible for naming things)
Department of History (summarizes each turn)
I did address the Designated Player Pool. I think a chain of command through the ministers is an easier and more democratic way of making sure things keep moving.

On Moving Departments:
I'm worried that the Domestic Department is on the verge of controlling everything significant that happens in the game. Which is why I think it's better to leave Civics and Religion in the hands of the President.

Also – I think it would be redundant to split Culture, Science, and Economy into different departments. A decision in one affects both of the others directly. It will be much simpler to have one department that can say "Tax at 40%, Science at 50%, Culture at 10%" rather than trying to make 3 separate departments all agree. Unless you wanted to make the Science and Culture departments responsible for the associated buildings?!? Which would just makes things even more complicated and unwieldy in my view.

Finally – I do like the department of propaganda, but I thought it would fit most logically with the Office of Humanities, as they are already recording history.
I tried to think: "The kind of person who will want to be elected and run this department will naturally have what kind of skills and interests?" and assign departments accordingly… while balancing how much each department has to do. I didn't want any officers with far less to do than their counter-parts.

So again, I apologize if I seemed to ignore you. That was not my intention at all. Hopefully I covered everything this time.

Looking forward to hearing your reaction.
After all, mine is just a proposal based on my personal thinking also!

Propaganda is interesting ... I initially felt that it would fit into Foreign ... however if it is similar to the newpaper (humourous) them it would fit better in the Humanities section.

We cannot post UN propaganda until every team has been met ingame.

Regarding the Designated Player Pool, I actually like that ... since there should not be a pre-requisite for a Minister to be able to open and play the save ... I also think that it is upto the president to appoint or list this roster ...

The President can aways add rules to the running of this roster ie. when and how it is activated.

Thanks for responding. :)

I did address the Designated Player Pool. I think a chain of command through the ministers is an easier and more democratic way of making sure things keep moving.I don't care who chooses the pool, as long as we agree there should be a group that can keep things moving.

Would not having Civ4 disqualify you from being a minister? From being president?

On Moving Departments:
I'm worried that the Domestic Department is on the verge of controlling everything significant that happens in the game. Which is why I think it's better to leave Civics and Religion in the hands of the President.

Also – I think it would be redundant to split Culture, Science, and Economy into different departments. A decision in one affects both of the others directly. It will be much simpler to have one department that can say "Tax at 40%, Science at 50%, Culture at 10%" rather than trying to make 3 separate departments all agree. Unless you wanted to make the Science and Culture departments responsible for the associated buildings?!? Which would just makes things even more complicated and unwieldy in my view.And I am concerned that the president is on the verge of controlling everything. :lol: Or at least becoming a bottleneck.

Would you accept giving Domestic control over religion and civics, and the President control over the sliders and budget?

We could require that Domestic appoint a certain number of department heads and follow their recommendations. Or maybe we should just split up Domestic into Economy and Interior, and vote for 2 positions.

Also, you didn't comment on my proposal that the president should be able to fill in orders in the absence of any minister. Do you agree?

Finally – I do like the department of propaganda, but I thought it would fit most logically with the Office of Humanities, as they are already recording history.
I tried to think: "The kind of person who will want to be elected and run this department will naturally have what kind of skills and interests?" and assign departments accordingly… while balancing how much each department has to do. I didn't want any officers with far less to do than their counter-parts.Propaganda is meant to be released to other teams, which is why I think it should have Foreign's approval. But we could certainly have an equivalent position for internal publishing under Humanities, maybe even held by the same person!

Would not having Civ4 disqualify you from being a minister? From being president?

It would disqualify the President (of course) ... But I think any person can run for any Ministerial position if they have cIV or not ... they will of course have to mention it when nominated.

It would disqualify the President (of course)...

I think a well-run government could function without the President playing the game. He/she would still need Civ4 experience though, which is much easier to obtain if you have the game. :)

Would not having Civ4 disqualify you from being a minister? From being president?

I think in the event of a minister not having Civ4, a designated player should be appointed by said minister to fill in their place in the chain of command.

And I am concerned that the president is on the verge of controlling everything. Or at least becoming a bottleneck.

If the president takes too much control, and refuses to relent, we can simply not re-elect him, or if all else fails, impeach him.

Would you accept giving Domestic control over religion and civics, and the President control over the sliders and budget?

If I'm not mistaken, I think the plan does call for the president controlling the budget.

We could require that Domestic appoint a certain number of department heads and follow their recommendations. Or maybe we should just split up Domestic into Economy and Interior, and vote for 2 positions.

I may be willing to support the idea of splitting Domestic into 2 positions, but what exactly would you have each position do, and how would their power be balanced with the foreign & defense ministers?

Propaganda is meant to be released to other teams, which is why I think it should have Foreign's approval. But we could certainly have an equivalent position for internal publishing under Humanities, maybe even held by the same person!

This idea I like a lot. It makes sense to have a propaganda position in both the foreign and humanities sections. Any discussion with other teams should go through the foreign minister, since that person is supposed to have the "knowledge" on strategic diplomatic issues.

Just my thoughts.

Wow – what a lively discussion!

I like this team already :lol:

Let me try to hit everything…

Regarding the Designated Player Pool, I actually like that ... since there should not be a pre-requisite for a Minister to be able to open and play the save ... I also think that it is upto the president to appoint or list this roster ...
If this becomes the team consensus, so be it. But I still vehemently disagree with doing this. It's a whole extra layer of bureaucracy and appointments that aren't necessary. We've got elected ministers that are (hopefully) already up to speed on what's going on in the game and are directly accountable to the people… since they are elected. If the president can't play – then the domestic minister can. If he can't – then the Defense Minister can. If he can't then the Foreign Minister can… then the UN rep. So far in the MTDG, I don't believe we've ever had to even active the CoC, but even if we do – there's plenty of redundancy already. If one of the ministers doesn’t have Civ4 – then it just passes to the next minister. No problem. No extra rules.


Would not having Civ4 disqualify you from being a minister? From being president?
The president's Primary job is to play the save – so I'd say having Civ4 is a requirement to be President. For all the other ministers and departments, it may be preferable, but it is not required. They can go off screenshots and reports.



And I am concerned that the president is on the verge of controlling everything. :lol: Or at least becoming a bottleneck.
Would you accept giving Domestic control over religion and civics, and the President control over the sliders and budget?.
You think the president is going to be a bottle neck? Let's look at each job description in my proposal:

President:
Civics – A rare decision. Only when something needs to be changed. Once every 20 turns max?
Religion – Switching state religions will only occur a few times in an entire game, max. Moving Missionaries around might be a little more work – but it's pretty limited.
Expansion – Choosing where each new city will go is another rare, but important, decision. Even on a large map, we'll probably only get to settle around 10 cities. This decision will involve domestic, defense, and foreign concerns – therefore best in the hands of the president.
Budget: How do we spend our surplus gold (if we even have the tech to spend it). This could be the most active part of the president's job – but it's not exactly a "bottle neck" job.

Bottom line: As I have proposed it, the President will play the save (execute orders of all other ministers), and very occasionally have his(her) own decisions to make.

Domestic Minister:
Dept. of Industry: Decisions will need to be made every turn on what we're building, what citizens are working which tiles, how to balance hammers with food with commerce, how many citizens (if any) should not work tiles to give us Great People points, and all the other myriad decisions a city has to make each turn – the heart of the game.
Dept. of Interior – Every turn workers will need to be moved, decisions will be made on do we want a farm or a cottage? Do we chop this forest now or wait? Do we need to hook up this resource first or build a winery over there first?
Department of Great People: When we have citizens not working, do we want them as Scientist? Engineers? How do we balance what the citizen produces inherently with the kind of Great Person we'd like the best odds of getting.
Department of Economy: Will be responsible to balance tax income with science spending and culture spending. Will choose what to research (And at what pace to do it).

Bottom line: In my proposal, the Domestic minister already controls 80% of the key elements of this game, and will be very actively issuing orders on every turn.

I can see moving control over the "Economy" (sliders for Tax, Science, and Culture) to the President – but I just can't imagine giving Domestic any more responsibilities that he already has! On most turns the president will just follow orders, and every so-often get to make a decision. The Domestic minister will be making great big game changing decisions virtually every turn!



We could require that Domestic appoint a certain number of department heads and follow their recommendations. Or maybe we should just split up Domestic into Economy and Interior, and vote for 2 positions.
I don't think Officers should be required to appoint anyone. That would take away from the simplicity of just having a few elected officials with freedom to do the most efficient and effective thing - as they see fit. I think our constitution should enable people to get things done as much as possible – not restrict them.
In the same veign, I think 2 positions just makes things more complicated than necessary. As much as possible, I think we should try to avoid overlapping responsibilities to keep things clear.

Also, you didn't comment on my proposal that the president should be able to fill in orders in the absence of any minister. Do you agree?
Must have missed that! Sorry. Yeah – I totally agree with this (I believe it's already written in my draft proposal – not that you could know that.) He can fill in - if the Current minister hasn't appointed a temporary replacement. I think the current Defense Minister ought to be able to say "hey – I'm going to be gone for the week, and I want 'X' to fill in for me." However – if they don't leave specific orders, the president can step in.

Propaganda is meant to be released to other teams, which is why I think it should have Foreign's approval. But we could certainly have an equivalent position for internal publishing under Humanities, maybe even held by the same person!
I like this! I'll totally change that in my draft proposal.



Whew!

What do you all think of that!?

(If I can't win on logic – I'll try to win on length! :lol:)

For the Record:

My silence in these matters does not indicate a lack of interest. Rather, due to the limitations of my sweet little compy, I don't have cIV, and therefore many of the nuances these plans speak to appear to me quite trivial (though I'm sure they are not at all!)

If forced to vote now, it will be very difficult for me to choose between two plans that, to my ignorant eyes, appear almost the same. Both plans strive toward simplicity, not complexity; both plans offer representation and accountability; both offer flexibility in participation. Essentially, I am not qualified to choose among them.

So if I had to vote now, I would either vote for both, or I would abstain. How odd is that!

They really are trivial nuances. I think General_W and I will end up agreeing on the same document. :)

(If I can't win on logic – I'll try to win on length! )

You always win on length:salute:

I think General_W and I will end up agreeing on the same document.
I certainly hope so! (And I'm sure we will)

Do you have any specific comments based on my massive post? Have I swayed you my direction at all?

You always win on length
:lol: I will take this as a compliment!

:old: <-- this is certainly not me rambling on and on.

:thumbsup: Gen_W, looking good and looking fine :D

The only thing I like from other team models that I know of, (and which was proposed by DaveMcW) is the Backup Turn Taking Roster ...

I am assuming that each Minister will issue orders for the President (Turn Taker) to follow for each turn ... so going through the mechanics of playing a turn is no big deal.

Therefore if the President is unavailable then i see having a list of eager players ready to fill in to be easily implimented ... as long as the turn reporting is of an equal calibre, then why not.

It is easy to impliment ... Any member wishing to take turns in a emergency please enroll on the list ... you must have the version of cIV on your system blah blah blah ... simple :)


I really think that it should not necessarily be a pre-requisite for the turn taking to go to Ministers, this is a separate element of the game, a list of players who may want nothing else than to play a couple of turns, happy to follow orders and not want the responsibility of holding office ...

:hmm: I can even see that under some Presidentships, on more than one occasion a couple of members are allowed to take turns, just to give people a go.

The person who has taken a turn will then be placed at the bottom of the roster ... all very simple. The list would hold names of everyone who would want the opportunity to just take the odd turn or two.

Just a thought ;) which if adapted into the main document will actually create a more inclusive environment to the game ... especially for those that are more interested in moving pieces about than strategising why they are doing it :p

I can support that idea, fe, with one addition. I think either the President or a majority of the ministers should approve the player list.

Reasoning: I simply don't want someone to "accidently" misunderstand the directions given to them and screw the whole team over. We could have all the discussion in the world, but if 1 un-elected person comes in, puts their name on the play list, and screws us on their turn, we have a huge problem.

Playing the turn is a big responsibility even if you're just following orders.

This discussion is excellent. Keep it up, even though my proposal fell through. :sad:

I can support that idea, fe, with one addition. I think either the President or a majority of the ministers should approve the player list.

Reasoning: I simply don't want someone to "accidently" misunderstand the directions given to them and screw the whole team over. We could have all the discussion in the world, but if 1 un-elected person comes in, puts their name on the play list, and screws us on their turn, we have a huge problem.

Playing the turn is a big responsibility even if you're just following orders.
I can live with that ... although in practice I doubt that anyone would be removed from the list ... I would keep it totally under the Presiden't discretion as well ... I don't like having a blackballing apron attired rite in the backrooms where ministers privately debate the values of potential turn takers ... :lol: just playing with the masonic theme ;)

But seriously ... everyone who wants a go, should be encouraged. :D

But seriously ... everyone who wants a go, should be encouraged. :D
That is basically what a SG type format would have allowed. It would have been a lot looser than the two models in play.

I was thinking exactly that :agree: as I started to formulate this ...

However the President would be the main turn player and then only if unavailable or at his discretion would the roster be activated ... and the pre-requisite to take a turn would also be the ability to provide accurate reporting with plently of screenies.

So basically, if a president gets elected and wants to institute a SG format for his term in office, he can. But that format may end after his term is over.

I guess so ... but all the pre-requisite conditions about reporting and following orders from him and the Ministries would have to apply.


Here is an example ... KISS have a young player aged 12 (perhaps the youngest in the MTDG) ... actually they also have the oldest at 70ish :lol:

In our system of government terms they would probably never have the opportunity to take a turn, as they would have to be elected President for 20 turns ... a daunting and somewhat scarey proposition for them both.

The system i am proposing will allow this young and old (and possibly noobie) to have the experience of taking the occasional more 'active' role in the game ... and in doing so, they both retain an active presence.

I guess so ... but all the pre-requisite conditions about reporting and following orders from him and the Ministries would have to apply.


Here is an example ... KISS have a young player aged 12 (perhaps the youngest in the MTDG) ... actually they also have the oldest at 70ish :lol:

In our system of government terms they would probably never have the opportunity to take a turn, as they would have to be elected President for 20 turns ... a daunting and somewhat scarey proposition for them both.

The system i am proposing will allow this young and old (and possibly noobie) to have the experience of taking the occasional more 'active' role in the game ... and in doing so, they both retain an active presence.
That is basically what my proposal would be like, we would not have an elected President but we all have a part in playing this should we choose to, because I know that I would have the time to be part of any ministry and thus it would limit my participation, whereas if we have a looser governance then we can have a greater participation rate than what we might want. Basically discusisions will be broken up into areas like were we can talk about issues that affect the current turn and then we can have discussions about each team that we meet and we can have a discussion about issues that affect the team in the long term.

I, too, feel that the opportunity to have a more active role in the team can build participation. That's why I support General_W or Dave's format. I think if people have a specific role in the team they will stay active because of having a responsibility.

I hear what all of you are saying – I really do.

But try to think about this in a practical sense – not just theoretical.


From our experience in the Civ3 MTDG, we know that it's most likely we'll end up with 3 groups of people…

The Core:
A core of 4-6 really dedicated and active people… they are totally up-to-speed on what's going on at any given time. They read and post on the forums several times everyday, and when they have to be gone for a few days, they post notice. These core people will all, most likely, end up in elected office of some kind.

The Involved:
These players post frequently – but tend to be most active in a just a few of the specific threads, and tend to disappear from time to time. They generally know what's going on, but when things start moving fast, they are behind the curve for a while.

The Fringe:
We only see these players from time-to-time when they drop in to offer their 2 cents on something. They generally aren't up to speed on what's going on – and their opinions may or may not be relevant.


Now – which group do you want to have the responsibility of playing our save and making any key decisions that the President has to make?
It's a mistake, in my view, to view the role of president as just enacting what you're told to do. There is a lot you have to remember to look at, things to check, screenshots to take, and a report to write. From my 2 terms as president of MIA, let me tell you – this is a big job with lots that you can mess up. (And even as committed as I was, I still messed 2 small things up on 2 occasions!)

It is my strong contention, that we want "Core" players holding this position. I wouldn't vote for an "involved" or "fringe" person to be president: and so I'm hesitant to see one of these people become president just because they put their name on a list.
I don't mean to be harsh – but if someone wants to try their hand at playing Civ – there are plenty of MP games they can join 24/7 on the internet. (Or become real active here and become the president yourself!)

I don't mind if we lose this game (losing is part of the fun) – but I don't want to lose because we made stupid mistakes where things weren't done correctly because someone hadn't kept up on all the discussion. That would just be frustrating.

Sure: we could implement lots of checks-and-balances on the list and we can add 2 pages of rules to the constitution, but why bother?!? If the President is going to be gone, and wants to appoint someone to takeover for him while he's gone – and there's someone that is active and the President trusts them – great! Let the president appoint a temporary replacement.
But if the president just goes missing (computer troubles?) then let's put this very important job in the hands of the people that are most likely to be dedicated and up-to-speed on all the current discussion…. The already elected Ministers!

This is the last time I'll whine about this. (I promise! :lol: ) If everyone still wants a separate list of back-up players, then I will change my draft constitution to reflect that.

I just think it will create more problems than it is worth.

I with General_W on this one, as much as I prefer to wade into the squishy middle-ground on most issues.

In my experience in the civ3 MTDG, the turn-player has to be at the most up-to-date and informed level of all the other players.... I didn't state that well... The turn player has to coalesce all the elements of the turn at hand, and respond to situations the ministers may not have forseen. Having a person take the turn just because their name was next could lead to some real problems.

Okay, I may have found some squishy :): Let's not lose sight of the fact that we can change the rules we are setting for ourselves at any time we want. We saw this happen in a very productive way in MIA's Foreign Department, and, to some extent, in the Presidency.

Let's just make sure that we don't constitutionalize a strict (and potentially unattainable) requirement for emendation.

So what is the upto date proposal ???

I think having a Designated plaing groups would be good.