I apologize for making belittling and off-putting rhetoric.
I have edited the offensive statements out of my comments.
You asked for a solid argument. I can offer an argument and let you decide what is solid.
A. On the issue of changing our team vote for Full Espy ON
There are 4 primary, practical reasons I think we should not change our team vote and 2 secondary, philisophical reasons. I will start with the practical ones because they are the most important.
1. Changing our Team vote will make our team look disorganized and foolish
2. Changing our Team vote will make our team look weak/disunited
3. Changing our Team vote will make our team look unreliable and untrustworty
4. Changing our Team vote will make me personally look foolish and weak
The less important, but still important philisophical reasons we should not change our team vote
1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage
2. Changing our Team vote on a controversial issue without first making an official process sets a bad precedent that will hamstring our Team for the rest of the game
Now I will discuss each issue
briefly (at least briefly for me
). If a point needs clarification or elaboration, just ask.
Reason 1- Changing our Team vote will make our team look disorganized and foolish
One of the things that will damage our Team in the all-important diplomacy with other Teams is if the other Teams already have a perception of us as clowns or bufoons. Our team choices have been posted on the threads for weeks. This issue is highly controversial and has been debated and argued ad-nauseum in the threads. For us to come back now and publicly say we want to reopen the issue after it has been voted on by all teams and decided makes it look like we don't have our act together. It makes it look like no one knows what the hell is going on on our team, no one is keeping track of anything, it's just total chaos. This will cause teams to regard us as rookies and not their favored trading partners. AMAZON faced a similar perception last game, as did Kaz in the game before that. What enabled us to work around that both times was the pressure of Tech trading. Even though the teams did not take us seriously and thought we were lightweights, the had to ally with us, against their true wishes, because in a tech trading game, you must form tech alliances quickly or you lose. In this game there is no tech trading, so there is no pressure to ally with people you dont take serious as contenders. If teams regard us as clowns, they will not ally with us, and we will be stomped.
2. Changing our Team vote will make our team look weak/disunited
Another important aspect of dealing with other Teams is unity. 2metra has already touched on this. Note how united team RB, Spanish Poly, and others seem on the threads. You can bet that they argue and disagree with each other in private, but they always rally behind each other in public. Even the ones who have nothing of substance to add to the arguments will hurl insults and post mocking smileys and such directed at "enemies" of their teammates. This makes their team appear stronger, and their points seem more valid, because many people seem to be agreeing with them.
In diplomacy, there will be many sources of disagreement and our team will have to negotiate with the other teams. If we have a reputation for backing each other up and being united, the other teams will respect our Diplomat(s), because they will know that the members of the Team speak with one voice. If teams believe we are fractured, they will contact individual members of our team who are not official diplomats by PM and try to convince them to sway our Teams' votes and such. If they don't like the deal the Diplomat is offering, they will say "Hrrmmph, scew that, I'll just PM so-and-so, and tell him to throw up a poll over there to get them to give us what we want. If we start off the game looking disunited, we will be dealing with this issue all game. Players on the Team will start getting suspicious of each other, accusing each other of being moles for other teams and such. It will be a mess.
In the game, there will be many situations (believe me, this is only the beginning) where members of different teams disagree on issues/rule interpretations, reloads, etc. The teams that rally behind each other will win the debate, and get the best result for their team. The teams that argue among themselves will only help the other teams to prove their point and get the best outcome for the other teams.
3. Changing our Team vote will make our team look unreliable and untrustworty
One of the most important things to our potential allies is that they can count on us. They want to know that when we promise them something or take a stand or give our word that we mean it, and we will not back down, or betray them or desert them, or go back on our statements. If we change our vote, all the teams that have voted with us will feel betrayed. They will feel that our team is not trustworthy. This attitude will carry over into the game. They will remember our going back on our word, and it will mean real consequences all game long. On the other hand, we will gain nothing from the teams who want us to change. RB in particular will not appreciate us changing our vote, because they will not regard it as a favor to them. They will regard it as evidence that we are weak-minded and easily persuaded by them. They, and all the other teams will see it as a sign of weakness.
4. Changing our Team vote will make me personally look foolish and weak and untrustworthy
This may not mean anything to some of you, but I am saying it because it is the truth. I am biased, obviously, because all the things I said above will also be thought about me personally as the Spokesperson/Co-Captain. I am not happy about the prospect of having Spanish poly and WPC and the other teams that voted with us thinking of me as unreliable and unable to properly manage a team. And the sad truth is, as cavscout already pointed out, there is guilt by association. What they think about me will also influnce how they feel about the team. Some of you may be thinking "Well I think you're being an overbearing bully on the threads! I don't want to be thought of that way!" However, I would prefer, at least in this context to be viewed as a bully as opposed to a pushover. It's a fine line, I will admit to that.
Here are the less important (but still important issues)
1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage
CSM banned is a "house rule" at RB. That is the standard way that they play their games. And they are good players. They are coming to "Our House" and trying to get us to play by their house rules. This is because they are experts at playing by their house rules. It is the way they always play.
We would not be wise to let a guy come to our house to play cards and then when he says "dueces and one-eyed-Jacks are wild! That's my house rules" we say "Oh OK." That is not smart. Instead we should tell him "No! Over here we play straight-up! No wilds!" Now he will whine about how his way is "better, it adds more flavor to the game, it adds more skill and calculation with all the wildcards... he has played so many games like this and trust him its so much better... Our way is so simplistic it will just turn into everyone doing one thing, trying to get the high cards..." etc, etc, you get the point. But we would be fools to play his way, because its his way. He knows how best to play that way and he will take all our money if we just play his way.
I remember somebody saying in our forum something like "I agree 100% with Lord Parkin on this CSM matter. My thoughts are the same as his!"
I almost fell out of my seat reading that. Lord Parkin is highly intelligent, articulate, knowledgable and skilled at Civ 4. One thing he is not is objective. Lord Parkin is highly partisan and highly opinionated. He is for his team and nobody else, as he should be. I am the same. I am just as partisan and as biased as Lord Parkin. But I am on your team. He is on his team. The arguments that LP makes have one thing in mind, which is securing the best result for his team. He is very persuasive, but always remember that he wants team RB to win, not you. I want you to win, not team RB or anyone else. Don't let Lord Parkin (or anyone) persuade you to play by RB's house rules. They are not "better" they are just RB's house rules. They are only "better" for RB. That is why they argue so passionately about it.
2. Changing our Team vote on a controversial issue without first making an official process sets a bad precedent that will hamstring our Team for the rest of the game
cavscout can attest to this. This is how it goes. The Diplomat or turnplayer gets a sense of what the consensus is by reading the threads and keeping up with the day-to-day discussion. Then they post a letter, or gameplan saying "Ok guys this is what we're gonna say/do unless somebody has an objection." A few guys say "Sounds good" or something like that, but most people dont comment. Then the Diplomat goes to the other team and says our team agrees to XYZ thing or the tunrplayer picks Bronze Working as the next tech... Then, some guy who hasn't logged on in a while comes into the thread and says "Hey! I don't agree with that!" The turnplayer/diplomat says "That was already decided." so he says "Well the majority agrees with me I'm polling that issue!" Then he posts a poll and the thing he wanted wins. Then he demands that the tech is changed or the agreement is rescinded, whatever. But then the turnplayer/diplomat says "Your poll was unclear/unfair/unauthorized/unworthy somehow. Im posting a new poll!" or "We aren't obeying your poll!" So either way then the other choice (that the turnplayer/diplomat wants wins. Then the other guy starts accusing the turnplayer/diplomat of being a tyrant/dictator/no-good such and such, insults start flying around, you can imagine.
What eventually happens is the team breaks up into factions, like political parties. The merits of a particular course of action no longer matter, and in fact are discussed less and less. Instead, its all about the polls and getting the most votes. I would prefer not to go this route again, because what it turns into, is that every single decision the team makes becomes like an election with campaigning, hard-feelings etc. There is no more consensus. Its just Faction 1 vs. Faction 2 on every issue, and who can sway the "independents." If our team is run like this all the substantive issues I raised earlier in this post will come up. Other teams will become frustrated with us because we take too long to decide things. Our Diplomats cant promise anything beacause they are always getting overturned by polls... etc etc.
I will post another post later about the relative, substantive merits of Full Espy ON vs. banned CSM a bit later, but to anyone who read this post thanks
I hope this is what you wanted tobiasn.
Voice of reason there. 
Teams are picking their leaders and civs on the basis of what has been decided, it's time to turn our focus to that activity, and play with what unambiguous majorities have voted on.
If so I think I would rather be Poll Master, or Leader of the "Silent Majority" than Captain or Diplomat... know what I'm sayin
). By the end of BTS MTDG I, Team Kaz had the most participation by far, because we did the most arguing.
