Who we are and How we work

I would really like to get our team identity and internal structure organised.

Structure
Consensus is a good and agreed ... but we need to have positions so that individuals are responsible to coodinate discussions and issue orders on specific topics to their 'department'.

At the moment we have support for the following positions.

First Chairman (TurnTaker)
They play the game and are responsible to send the save.
They react to unforseen events, which may require a change in the orders issued by Departments. (eg a city rushes military when rival sighted)
Post a detailed Report with Screenies after each turn taken.
Has ultimate decision if orders are not submitted from Departments.
Decide on action if these orders conflict (eg. what a city is to build)
Micromanage to insure peak production in cities.
Organise a system to ensure that turns are taken in 24 hours.

UN Rep
'Official' mouthpiece to the UN forum.
Post any questions and polls required by Administrators.
PM the administrators with any concerns and ask for rulings on legal game issues.

Chairman of Domestic Affairs
Coordinate threads that concern matters on city site expansion, city builds, set science/income/happiness slider and technology research, worker actions.
Organise City/Worker naming.
Control the Coffers.
Submit orders to TurnTaker for each save.

Chairman of Defence
Coordinate threads that concern matters on military, unit builds, unit movement.
Handle the Barbarian (if we have them) issue.
Organise Unit naming.
Submit orders to TurnTaker for each save.

Chairman of Foreign Issues
Coordinate threads that concern foreign nations.
Coodinate the various embassy activities.
Handle Trade and Treaties.
Request Embassies.
Report on Foreign activity, ie. Rival City Growth, Research, Resources.
Suggest major actions, War and Peace.
Coordinate exploration (in conjunction with defence)
* Maybe even having a small separate allowance in which to fund activities.

I assume these positions will be formaly voted for.

1. How long will the terms last for?
2. Who organises the elections, how soon before the term ends are nominations called for?
... perhaps the UN Rep could also have this task.
3. Do we need a constitution?
... MIA had an elaborate one (too detailed IMO), but it did fill in the time before the game started and everyone knew what the responsibilities were.

Thoughts?

Looks quite good to me!

I think we need a team captain. This would be a more or less out-of-game position, to keep things going, a bit like in an SG. If all goes well, this position is not needed but it's nice to have. Could be elected or appointed for life, it doesn't matter too much I think. Description:
Team Captain
Makes emergency decisions when another official goes AWOL.
In case of a tied vote the team captain has a decisive vote.

Some other issues:
How do the various ministers get to their decisions? I would like to see the consensus model built in there somehow, lest we pull in different directions. If necessary, we can always take a team vote.
I don't really like the phrase "order", I would rather say "advise", or perhaps "counsel". I think our turn players and diplomats are sensible enough to consider the advice from the rest of the team, especially on important matters. And if they are not, then we're lost anyway.

It seems both domestic and military control the city queues . And foreign seems a bit heavy. Maybe place exploration with military? Mayor issues such as war and peace can be suggested by anyone I think, and should be decided by the team.

Do we allow people to have multiple positions? I think yes, except maybe the three ministers and the turnplayer need to be separated.

Your questions:
1. 20 turns for the first term where little or nothing happens, 10 afterwards?

2. Either team captain or UN rep.

3. A description of the various roles would be nice but you've already written one it seems . Apart from that a description of the election system (the term length and who organizes elections). I would phrase this rather as information for new citizens or a FAQ than a constitution.

I'm with zyxy here. I really like how informal and self-organizing our team has been so far. I'd like to see little to no constitution. That doesn't mean we are anarchists - it just means that we all 'get it'.

I think that 10 turns is a bit short once things are rolling. I'm afraid we'll see that every two to three weeks we're thinking about consensual elections; in the last game 20 turns was anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks.

If I'd had the time, I would have answered the first post earlier saying that I though it was fine, though a bit rigid, and that I didn't like to use the word 'orders', rather call it 'advise'. Now I don't have to, zyxy said it all! I agree with every single word he says.

I strongly agree that it is important that the model does not lead to the different branches pulling in different directions. The point of a ministry is to make sure that the team has sufficient information to make the proper decisions. The ministers themselves should preferably be driving discussions, but they are not the ones to make the decisions! Consensus consensus consensus.

I would also like to see the 'purse' not being in anyone's control. It will be just as important in all branches of the government, indeed often the least so on the domestic side. Everyone should be agreed on why we are saving money in the first place, or running deficit. Again, ministers are advisors, not decision makers.

I think 20 turns is a good number for term length. And we could vote on it, but only if there is a clash of interest. I'm of the mind that the fewer polls and votes we need to run, the better we have succeeded.

I think that the UN rep and the Team Captain could well be one and the same. The fact that we're wondering which of them should run internal polls is a clear indication that there is no real need to separate them in the first place.

I wouldn't mind a constitution being written, if only for the fun of it. I don't think we really need it, but why not? As zyxy noted, it would serve well as a FAQ for new members.

Perfectly stated. Consensus Consensus Consensus!!!

Speaking of which, maybe it's time for us to announce our presence to the world?

Shall we tell the UN of the existence of The Council?

I had a point that became irrelevant when I re-read the posts

This makes sense to me. How often do we expect turns to happen, btw? I assume that we take a turn, then the save gets passed to the other civs, then back to us for our next turn? Am guessing that the first 3 or 4 turns or so won't take too long, until the first warrior/curragh is built or the worker has to change what he's doing. But after that, they will slow down considerably.

Because of time zones there will usually be a few days per round.

And yes, let's decide on the team name. I opened a new thread for this here.

just for the record...

I like the idea of ministers as providers of information and directors of discussion.

Maybe we should call them "chairmen" ?

Ie - Chairman of Defense, or Chairman of the Domestic Committee, etc.
And the "president" could be the First Chairman?

Anyway - wrong thread for that I guess.
Looking good!

Oh- and I also think it's good to have a constitution... for new people if nothing else.

Of course General_W thinks it's a good idea to have a Constitution. How else is he going to usurp power if there's none mandated

I like the Chairmen concept alot. For that matter, they could also be Secretaries of the various Commitees.

Back to turn-times: The last game went to turn 208 or 209 (help?). It started in August of '05, and ended in early November of '06.

just over 15 months = around 66 weeks. That works out to 11 turns every 5 days. There were some instances where the save would not advance to the next team in the prescribed 24 hours, but that was rare; I don't recall the save being held for more than 72 hours ever.

Hope that helps!

I too like the Chairman idea and have altered accordingly

We've got three threads that seem to deal with "who we are", so please excuse if this isn't the appropriate thread.

I spent a little time working on a banner. It's not much yet, but I wanted to post now so that I could get some feedback, or possibly inspire others to have a go of it.

I think it would be good to see a motto or something incorporated, but this is what I've got so far:

nice!! I vote for Peter Grimes to be Chairman of Heraldry!!

That's Beautiful Peter!

Peter for Chairman of Heraldry! Huzzah!

Hey Pete

Could you post the link to the image of our Coat of Arms so I can add it to our info page.

Are we done with it already??

No motto or anything?

I'll post the link stuff when I get home tonight

We could have a motto that's ironic/humors like…

"There is no 'I' in The Council"



or we could go with something more serious like…

"Glorificus Concilium Unus" (Latin for " Glorious Council of One")

Just another "asset": our round table:

That table is sweet!!

My personal preference is the funny motto, but I understand that it doesn't exactly mesh with the rest of our image.

Maybe combining the "latin" and the irony?

Concilio "I" non exceptet

Boy, my Latin Composition is pretty rusty! That took me almost 1/2 hour

A joke in Latin ... that is priceless

Add that to the brilliant round table and I think we got it

excellent!