Discussion in 'Team Kazakhstan' started by Sommerswerd, Mar 8, 2009.
Have you checked the "Tactics and Strategy" thread lately? Ah snap!
We change our minds in "Tactics and Strategy" thread all the time.
But since we started doing polls again no one has asked to change their vote in a poll. I looked back through the thread, (since the "potterygate" issue at the start of the game) and I don't see anyone who has advocated a different opinion on an issue after we polled it.
The problem is that we change our minds a lot as new arguments are brought up. This is good intra team debate. However, when we need to make a decision - it is hard to get through that mess and figure out what everyone wants. Hence a poll makes sense.
I think polls also makes sense as it forces people to make a time bound decision. We could still be debating what to tech next, but having a poll focused the issue. I note that we also got slightly higher team participation by having a poll.
In your previous post you said your issue with polls was:
This has not happened since Sommers took over polling. I think it is working quite well except for you and Donsig.
I'm not so opposed to polling, I think it's most useful when we aren't getting clarity on a particular course of action. Where I'm not so keen on it is where we've pretty much got an idea of what to do and the poll is almost a way to reverse the expressed majority view. But I do agree, that it would be nice if there were no boycotters!
I don't think people dropped off because we stopped polling. In the early days it was after all me that organised much of the polling.
Oh and can we make the Super Six at least a Super Seven as damnrunner has been in from the start and I almost always agree with what he says
I feel the love
And look, I also agree with people on other teams!!
See my response to Lord Parkin: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7928208&postcount=387 L. Parkin's post is off-base and inapplicable to our team (probably because L.Parkin has no idea what we do... he's just imagining worst case scenarios...) Look at the specific issues he raises:
1. they poll each turn on lots of different details. - Wrong
2. Maybe "what to build in city A", "where to move unit X", perhaps even "what reply do we give to team Z". - Wrong, we have never polled any of these issues
3. The downside, of course, is that this tends to lead to a mess of threads everywhere - Wrong, I think our forum is pretty organized, obsolete polls and poll alerts bubble out of view, keeping the relevant threads in view.
4. and can make the discussions harder to follow - Wrong. This statement is not logical, because LESS threads make the discussion harder to follow. With LESS threads, you end up disorganized and off topic, because there is no appropriate thread for a particular issue. Imagine if we had just ONE thread for foreign affairs (instead of one for each team) for example... Now THAT would be hard to follow.
That is one reason I am a little wary about a single poll alert thread, because if multiple polls are coming up, we will end up discussing both issues in the same thread, and the poll alert itself (with the proposed choices and deadlines) will quickly be lost in the pages of discussion. Bottom Line - More Threads can mean more organization and easier to follow discussion.
5. Plus it can lead to suboptimal decisions being made - Wrong. In THEORY this is possible, but this HAS NOT happened on our team (Potterygate aside) ... I see this as basically a straw anti-poll agument
6. because there's a tendency for results to be biased by lurkers who drop by quickly to vote without actually reading the discussion (and thus making uninformed decisions). - Wrong. There is no such "tendancy." Again, as I have pointed out many times, this has NEVER happened, this is another straw anti-polling argument
7. At least with a worded discussion (as opposed to a simple vote box), you can be sure that everyone is reading before stating their opinion. - Wrong. You can not be "sure" of anything. Just because folks are posting their preferences on the issue instead of voting in a poll does not mean they are reading or paying attention to the discussion/posts of others.
L.Parkin's statement is almost laughable, because almost every time we are deciding / or polling a major issue, someone on the team will accuse others on the team of "ignoring the facts" and/ or "just voting on principle" or "voting without any testing, evidence, support, or plan for how the idea would be implemented." Since we ignore other's arguments anyway, where is the great value of deciding in the thread as opposed to polling? Answer - There is none.
8. Although of course, that might drop activity levels a bit. - I for one, don't want activity levels to drop. L. Parkin seems not to care much about that, do other folks agree? I have heard that L.Parkin basically makes all the decisions on the team... He has complained in the UN that there is almost no discussion between turns on Saturn. I don't think this is a coincidence. If one (or a few) players are making all the decisions, what is the point of participating? I would caution anyone who agrees with Lord Parkin's way of thinking...
Is a possible reason that L. Parkin feels the way he does, because he (and possibly one or two others) is making all the decisions? He does not want additional input... he likes things just the way they are, with him playing the game, and everyone else observing, no?
Look at Saturn's score... Look at how behind they are in tech... Look at the colossal blunder they made (not sending out a wb). That is what happens when one person makes all the decisions. We should be very careful about "agreeing" with Parkin's strategy.
Sommers, the number of threads needed is based on the same concepts as the number of polls needed. Needed is the key word here. Yes, trying to do all oour foreign affairs stuff in one thread would be very difficult to follow. We need a thread for each team we talk to. But we also need that General Foreign Policy thread that Herviov started so we can have a place to put summaries of our foreign policy. Too few threads and too many threads can both make it difficult to follow what is being discussed. Likewise, too few polls and too many polls can hinder our group decision making.
If we're to excel as a team we need to have a system where each of us can specialize according to our talents. We not all going to be experts in all phases and aspects of this game. You have been specializing polls which is great. Continue your good work on the mechanics of polls, just don't push unnecessary polls on us or veto polls one of us asks for. Also, remember that a poll is not necessarily the final word on a team decision.
OK, no prob Damnrunner, but I have a few questions first. Do you mean to say:
1. you want a new thread for people to post their choices, or;
2. that you would like me to tally up what folks preferences seem to be so far, or;
3. are you making a request for an official poll?
Since polling has been so divisive and controversial on our team, I want to be absolutely sure what you are asking for before I take steps towards constructing a poll.
Also, (due the opposition to polling, IMO) our team participation is down to 7 team members who I will now (quoting in part) name with smileys for dramatic, light-hearted, non-threatening effect. The members are:
see this link for explanation.
So if boycotts a poll and and boycott in solidarity with , we will end up with a 4 member poll that will have far less value. I don't want this to happen. So if I PM our AWOL members the poll alert, to increase participation (as I have done in the past), then we will for the first time possibly have a poll where active members are outvoted by inactive ones... which needless to say will be a very sticky situation.
So in conclusion let me know what you mean by a series of votes...
I am willing to participate in polls regarding our alliance structure. I do think we need some discussion before any polls. I think the first thing we need to address is whether we even want to stay allied with Team Cav until the other three teams are gone. Maybe even before that we need to settle on a victory strategy. It seems to me this game will be won by domination.
Hmm - So am I the one freaking out, or the glow stick ninja?
I think the 1st step would be to come up with a list of poll questions that members of the team all can agree on. The other issue is what order to ask questions in, as this will direct later vote choices.
For example - donsig's question
This sort of fundamental question is a great place to start as it sets out a 1st principle from which other decisions about our alliance should be based.
I'll come up with some ideas later in the week but right now am just back from a busy weekend and am working on far to little sleep to think clearly.
Damnrunner, I agree with your approach, but in the same post you quoted, Donsig also said:
Then he changed his mind and said that he was "not voting yet" so I am trying to respect Donsig's wishes and get a majority team decision on what kind of victory we want. It seems like we will have that soon so then we can move to deciding whether we want to end our alliance with Cavalieros.
Sommerswerd, saying I think the game will be won by domination should not be construed as a vote for the type of victory condition I want. The remark was meant to begin a discussion of victory goals. It seems we have some different ideas out there regarding the victory type possible. We first need to decide what is feasable (and what isn't) then decide which of those is best for us.
OK Donsig, fair enough... What I should have said was:
Is that better Donsig? Also, have you reached any resolution on the type of victory you actually are in favor of? If you have, please post your choice in the "Long-Term Strategy" thread as that is really off topic for this thread.
Lastly, and to bring this thread back on-topic... This statement:
is a perfect indication of why polls are superior to voting in the threads. With a poll, I would not have to worry that I mis-construed your wishes. You click on an option to give a clear yes or no vote. For example, what kind of victory condition we want is a good candidate for a poll, however, since participation is so low, there is probably no point. Folks can just post what kind of victory they want. I encourage you to do just that.
Yes, polls offer an undisputable way to determine a person's answer to a specific question, but unless the proper question is asked the answers are not only useless they can be detrimental. What we need now is some discussion, where we are free to say things, hear what others have to say and (Polling God forbid!) change our minds if we learn something. If you put up a poll right now listing all the possible victory conditions I would not vote. Not because of a boycott but because I do not know which victory condition gives us the best chance to win! I am not very good at and haven't even played an MP game through to the end. I'd really like to hear what others have to say about this matter before deciding. But if you need an answer right now here it is:
I want any victory condition as along as we win.
Is this helpful Sommers?
EDIT: Oops forgot the
Yes very helpful thanks. Now I understand that you were just trying get alot of info/feedback. Anyway the last few posts between us have taken a strained kindof tone (not hostile mind you but a little, shall we say competitive?). So in the spirit of love and happiness (and trying to hold onto our meager little 7 member team) I say to you Donsig! I had no intention on posting a poll without a poll alert (and discussion) first anyway but regardless.
I feel the love.
Love is all around, and it expesses in curious ways
As I said before, I think we should do a series of polls in an attempt to move forward on the Team Cav treaty.
So I think we are largely agreed on a Dom/Conquest approach/mindset. Step one, done.
I have two suggested polls that I think are a good place to start narrowing the huge debate we have had on what sort of treaty we want with Team Cav. The 1st is on what we think we will get from the treaty. The 2nd is what sort of treaty we think we should construct. Once we can answer these questions, we can really start to work on some specifics. Please make suggestions if you think this is a good place to start and on any suggested changes to the following questions.
How do we view the alliance as the game goes forward (this – by nature - is both what we think we will do and what we think they will do)
A-It will last until the bitter end
B-the teams will eventually cut ties at some predetermined point
C-It slowly breaks down
D-Betrayal when one team sees an advantage to be gained
I think this is a pretty good summary of the general types of treaties we have discussed
A-Share Everything (each team trades all techs as we go and provides any help that is reasonable needed)
B-Ad hoc/status quo (make stuff up as we go – pretty much what we have been doing for a while)
C-Balance of Power (Each team agrees to maintain a certain amount of parity)
D-Equal Contribution (Each team contributes the same amount to the treaty)
Lets avoid unofficial voting until we agree to actually move forward on this and actually have the questions we want to include.
I think rank order voting is probably the best way to go on this.
Good ideas damnrunner. I would like to suggest that question 2 include an option that corresponds with the kind of alliance Team Cav has suggested:
Alliance within an alliance: We remain allied till the other three teams are toast. We both do what it takes to achieve this goal even if this means one team contributes more than the other. We try to end the alliance with a balance of power between the two allies.
I understand the rest of your post... I just did not understand the two above statements... Can you explain a little more ?
Separate names with a comma.