More in-depth discussion on strategy would help keep everyone on the same page. Consider cutting the rounds in half, or at least the first round. Discussing what to do about our land and Gilgamesh would have been more pertinent 50 turns ago than discussing the success of your rush v. the success of the GLH.
Basically, it could be more educational if we're all taking a similar approach. It would highlight more subtle differences in gameplay. For example, how to settle that Copper best could have been a great discussion if we were all planning on rushing.
That would be interesting if everyone wanted to play the same strategy. I think this map was designed to slow down Shaka. He would walk over a religious Ai that played peacefully. Then again this would restrict gameplay and flare for people to try something different. I think the cookbook should be kept different to a walkthrough style of thread.
For me its fascinating to see how different players have placed their cities and the different approaches to early builds and techs. In a way the voting part should encourage debate and disicussion on how people have played. You could change round lengths but its nice for a player to stamp his mark on a round.
For instance I liked the way Heur's Stone Henge save worked out a way to use the copper and the sea resources. When I was planning a copper city I looked at that city location and just thought this site will take 30+ turns to reach size 2 before i can whip it or build a monument and my settler moved on.
Having looked back I can now see a great capital site east of my current spot.
I think if people just say 1st A 2nd B 3rd C you learn less. That being said this round with 22 saves has given a chance for some real debate.
Anyway i think Kossin is right we should close the voting and start the next round. The fact my save was winning has not influenced this decision.

Let me do a post and we'll start the next round.