And so it begins...

[fe3333au]

I think we are agreed on the following internal structure:
>
UN Representative
First Chairman (Turntaker)
Chairman of Domestic Affairs
Chairman of Defence
Chairman of Foreign Issues

Will the terms for each be 20 turns?

The election process should also be discussed.

1. When (how many turns before new term) should nominations be asked for, 2 or 3 or 4 turns?
2. Do nominations require a seconder?
... personally I don't think that this is needed, all that is really required is for a person to either nominate themselves or to agree to run for a position.
2. How long should election polls be up for?

Are there any other things regarding our structure that needs to be modified or added???

I'd like to clear this up so that we can begin the process.

 

[peter grimes]

I don't think we need to formalize a specific number of turns for the nomination period. Once we get close to the 20 turn limit of the current term, people may post their desire to run for a Chairmanship. We can start the election threads whenever feels appropriate, as long as all people who wish to vote have enough time to register their preference of candidate. I really don't think these things need to be codified into a strict schedule. And if things fall a little behind, and we don't have enough time to log everyone's vote before the 20th turn comes around... so what? It's just us, after all

Cerntainly no need for seconding nominations. That's fine for large parlaimentary instutions, but anyone here should feel free to express interest in a chairmanship, without fear of rejection.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

20 turns is fine - do we want the 1st one to be 30 turns, since until you get a scout and a 2nd city out, it's pretty straight forward. Or should it stay 20,because the beginning is so important?

I think that nominations should start no earlier than 5 turns before and no later than 2 turns before, so we can concentrate most of our time actually playing

And I think that seconding nominations is something we do not need unless we get to a point where many, many people want to nominate themselves.

 

[General_W]

I think it’s still a good idea to have a set term length – even if we bend or break that standard occasionally.
20 Turns seems like a good benchmark to me. After the first 20 turns of the game, we can always just, by (wait for it….) consensus re-approve our current slate of officers for another 20 turns if we all like how things are going.

Nomination process should be as informal as possible. Just throw your hat in the ring if you’re interested.

At least that’s my take!

 

[Niklas]

I agree with GW. We are few enough that we don't need much formality. If someone is interested in running as one of the chairmen for a period, then just say so. And I think everyone who wants to should be given a chance, i.e. circulation is a good thing. No need to do polls if everyone plays nice.

 

[peter grimes]

I think there's something AutomatedTeller neglected to mention: He achieved Quatermaster not too long ago!

Great job!

 

[AutomatedTeller]

thanks it was fun to do. I have never played against a human player, though, so dont' be thinking I'm anything special.

 

[Paul#42]

As our focus in this game might be set on Research, should there be a Chairman of Science (or research) installed?

I assume this usually falls to the Chairman of Domestic affairs and I'd like to discuss whether we should split this. Would that help or hinder?

I see this Chairman of Science as an advocat for fastest research and strategic decisions in that department. He should estimate and compute research costs, timing and priorities.

He could debate with the Chairman of domestic Affairs over luxury rates and specialist employment.

He could also debate with the Chairman of Foreign Issues about tech related negotiations.

Useful or overkill?

 

[peter grimes]

Let's wait and see how the first 30 turns go.

We can always add Chairmanships later

That said, I don't see it as overkill

 

[fe3333au]

The Domestic Chairman could assign his own subcommittee ... what all the teams found were that there was many periods in the game with only a minimum of players active ... therefore the less number of 'official' positions the better.

 

[fe3333au]

To speed things up ... I have sent a admins and Rik a PM to indicate that the save password is consensus

Hope that this is OK, even if I didn't use the process which is our password

The reason was Rik mentioned starting on Map 'over weekend' and I am busy with stuff and also I prefer passwords that are easy to remember.

 

[General_W]

uhmm.... I second that password?

er.... I would have voted for that, if given the chance?

I mean... it's also my consensus that it's a good password?

Nice job Fe! Way to go executive decision!

 

[zyxy]

Objection!

I would have preferred dissension.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

you warmongering fool! consensus is clearly the better choice! down with dissension!! objections are not in order!!!!

*pounds shoe on desk*

I WILL BREAK YOU!!!

sorry - was channeling nikita there for a second...

 

[fe3333au]

Any thoughts about what our capital should be named ???

I was thinking if we want to go with a 'council' theme maybe someting like The Chambers

Just a thought

 

[peter grimes]

Why plural? How do you feel about 'The Chamber'?

 

[TheLoneMan]

Any thoughts about what our capitol should be named ???

Well, considering it's where all our decisions will be made... perhaps 'The Arena' .

 

[Niklas]

How about continuing the latin theme and name it Forum?

 

[zyxy]

The Meeting Room
The Board Room
The Round Table
The Seagreen Chamber
Security Nexus
Flower Pot

 

[General_W]

My vote would go to "The Chamber" or else "Security Nexus" … but a lot of those ideas are good