Team CFC Constitution

[talonschild]

I'd like to second Avioturso's modification, to be added alongside a consultation modification. In fact, I'll do that right now.

 

[Aivoturso]

But strong and united team can go trough anything.

This. Basically every rule we make should aim for having a strong and united team.

 

[DaveShack]

One lesson from a multitude of past democracy games is that there are two big aspects to the democracy -- in game, and role play. If there are many people who get charged up by role play, making them more enthusiastic participants, then we should aim for a structure which fosters that.

At the same time, unlike a single player democracy game where it's not the end of the world to have a few sub-optimal turns, these multi-player games are competitive. We want the very best available gameplay on each turn. In that respect, the best people at multi-player need to step up and lead, and those of us who are not so good at MP (like me for example) need to give our input but not be upset if the turnplayer takes us a different direction.

I see 4 facets that need to be addressed.

• Strategic decisions -- how to win. Needs input from everyone.
• Tactical/technical gameplay -- micromanagement, unit movement, eventually wartime. Needs specialists in those areas, who may or may not also be the turn players.
• Foreign Policy / Diplomacy -- My teams frankly have not been very good at this. I'll defer to people who have been on winning teams. One diplomat or several? Needs very good language skills, and also a strong strategic component on deciding who to ally with and who is the enemy. Above all else, must be prompt. The biggest knock on a couple of my previous teams is that we took too long and were not responsive, making the other teams believe we were insincere.
• Atmosphere -- Keeping it fun so that people want to stay active, while making sure we're still strong in the gameplay areas.

Personally, I don't need the role play thing right now. I'm here to learn why my skills at the other 3 areas don't lead to many wins. Democracy, Republic, Monarchy -- it's all the same to me as long as someone who knows how to win MP games is out in front.

 

[talonschild]

I feel direct democracy might hamper that, so the constitution was written with the idea that while the decision making process was transparent, the decision makers were not too constrained by other members of the team.

 

[2metraninja]

One lesson from a multitude of past democracy games is that there are two big aspects to the democracy -- in game, and role play. If there are many people who get charged up by role play, making them more enthusiastic participants, then we should aim for a structure which fosters that.

At the same time, unlike a single player democracy game where it's not the end of the world to have a few sub-optimal turns, these multi-player games are competitive. We want the very best available gameplay on each turn. In that respect, the best people at multi-player need to step up and lead, and those of us who are not so good at MP (like me for example) need to give our input but not be upset if the turnplayer takes us a different direction.

I see 4 facets that need to be addressed.

• Strategic decisions -- how to win. Needs input from everyone.
• Tactical/technical gameplay -- micromanagement, unit movement, eventually wartime. Needs specialists in those areas, who may or may not also be the turn players.
• Foreign Policy / Diplomacy -- My teams frankly have not been very good at this. I'll defer to people who have been on winning teams. One diplomat or several? Needs very good language skills, and also a strong strategic component on deciding who to ally with and who is the enemy. Above all else, must be prompt. The biggest knock on a couple of my previous teams is that we took too long and were not responsive, making the other teams believe we were insincere.
• Atmosphere -- Keeping it fun so that people want to stay active, while making sure we're still strong in the gameplay areas.

Personally, I don't need the role play thing right now. I'm here to learn why my skills at the other 3 areas don't lead to many wins. Democracy, Republic, Monarchy -- it's all the same to me as long as someone who knows how to win MP games is out in front.

Very well said and really manly words, Dave

As much as a game must be fun, this does not interfere at all with being competitive. Exactly the opposite! Winning against such competition in such a game will be rewarding and beyond. So in order to win it, our team must generally rely on following advices of those who are good in any sphere. I myself consider experienced player, but I can honestly say I was happy to learn many things from playing in MTDG2. So there is a place to learn for anyone, and to me at least learning new things about the game I love is fun and worthy

I dont know where the thin and fragile line must be drawn between listening to the experienced ones and still keeping in mind the newcomer's opinion and in the same time not frustrating the veterans, who may think they see what is best and be annoyed if the game dont follow their opinion and still keeping the game interesting for the less experienced if we follow the veterans advices. LOL, what a mess of expression I just made, but I think you follow.

I think adopting the presumption that whatever one do or want to be done it comes from him trying his best to help the team, will keep us best safe from frustration or disappointments. It is a delicate thing, but we are all grown up. I think the less experienced in MP players must try to find their joy in the game with learning from the veterans, while the veterans must try and find fun in discussing/brainstorming new ideas from the newer guys, which are not burdened with the existing MP dogmas. I am still not sure which constitution will work best to implement this fragile balance - the experienced to lead and the less experienced to follow and support.

 

[YossarianLives]

I completely agree with DaveShack's and 2metraninja's posts. I hope Sommers and 2metra will take a lead in whatever form of government we have. I trust whoever is the turnplayer to make the ultimate decisions, while discussing each turn with the team for input.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This was the way that Polls were handled on AMAZON. We elected a Poll Master:

I propose we elect an officer to be responsible for constructing the polls in a way that is fair to everybody, rather than anyone posting whatever poll they want.

My main reasons for wanting this officer position made:

1. If we have someone who is responsible for creating polls, we have someone who can be held accountable, if problems arise.
2. Someone who can be held accountable is more likely to make every effort to make sure that polls are gotten up on time and handled fairly.
3. Polls that are handled fairly may help to avoid avoidable conflicts that could rise from confusing or slanted polls.

Not a main reason, but a side benefit is that all polls will be conducted in a consistent format, which could help to avoid confusion.

Being an elected position if people think the polls are unfair an election can be called for a replacement.

There is an obvious issue with having only one person make the polls as we want everyone to be able to have whatever they want polled. This is a complete and true democracy after all, not a republic posing as a democracy. To solve this problem I propose a thread be made called "Polls Needed" or something similar, in which anyone can post what they want to be polled.

One of the primary responsibilities of the "Poll-Master" would be to make sure that whatever anyone posts in that thread gets polled, and polled fairly.

Here is another way of handling the Duties of Office:

The duties of the poll master are as follows:

The Poll-Master does not take responsibility for constructing the polls fairly, but instead takes the responsibility for reviewing the polls posted to determine if they are fairly constructed.

If the poll-master determines that a poll is not fairly constructed, they are responsible for making suggestions to the poster and making sure that a replacement poll or polls that are fair be conducted in a timely manner.

In the event that this officer is not active or away the Captain (or another elected officer) can temporarily assume the responsibilities of the poll-master.

 

[Caledorn]

This was the way that Polls were handled on AMAZON. We elected a Poll Master.

-snip-

I can see nothing that would need to be changed in that text. I propose we use the rules as suggested by SilentConfusion for Team Amazon and amend them to our own Team CFC rules. A poll could be made for ensuring we have a majority for it by one of the Team Captains, as the last sentence of the Duties of Office quote suggests?

 

[Majic]

So, your'e saying talonschild's poll isn't legit because AMAZON had a poll-master?

 

[talonschild]

I think he was saying that I should just claim the title and make it official

In all seriousness, constant polling does sound like a good idea. However, the question becomes: should it inform or dictate the orders of a Minister?

As you may have noticed, I lean toward "inform". It seems that you, Sommerswerd, lean toward "dictate". What do the rest of you think? Or instead of asking should I - ah - make a poll?

 

[YossarianLives]

Do we need an election, or can we just officially give talonschild the title? If we need an election, I vote for talonschild.

I also agree that polls should be used to "inform" the captain/turnplayer/minister of the team's preferences, but do not necessarily need to dictate all our decisions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think he was saying that I should just claim the title and make it official

In all seriousness, constant polling does sound like a good idea. However, the question becomes: should it inform or dictate the orders of a Minister?

As you may have noticed, I lean toward "inform". It seems that you, Sommerswerd, lean toward "dictate". What do the rest of you think? Or instead of asking should I - ah - make a poll?

I am dying... DYING to hear what cavscout has to say about the above post cav we should see if donsig, Kaleb and Indiansmoke want to join the team!

Anyway, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with polls meant to inform rather than dictate. It seems like you and I agree on this.

It's only for polls meant to dictate, that I believe a transparent uniform, procedure is advisable.

 

[talonschild]

Oh, good. That was easy.

 

[Aivoturso]

In all seriousness, constant polling does sound like a good idea. However, the question becomes: should it inform or dictate the orders of a Minister?

Polling: OK for gathering data - Bad for decicions, IMHO. I belive polling as it is provided in the forum is fundamentally flawed decicion making method for two reasons:

1. Consensus by poll is unideal decicion making method. Most of the issues that we run into in this game will require expert knowledge. Reaching the decicion with polling will e.g. count my votes for second city placement as important as, say, 2metraninja's. Honestly I think in this example case the team would be much better just ignoring me and listening 2metra. I believe it is much more important to discuss things openly among us and try to reach consensus after argument. Only if it is necessary to decide between equally justified selections, then voting can be a good method.
2. A poll result does not necessarily represent opinion of majority. Polls as they are implemented in CFC forums provide majority results only if there are two mutually exclusive options and enough team memers to reach full majority vote. If we need to select for more than two options by vote, IMO we'd be better off using other more sophisticated voting methods (e.g. a ranked voting method).

To clarify, I'm not suggesting for dictatorship. This is a team game. However, I believe if we can minimize amount of voting, we have better change to reaching an optimal results.

 

[talonschild]

So... you prefer if it informs Ministerial decision-making, then. Gathering data and all that.

 

[grant2004]

I agree that we should have one person consistently creating the polls, that will certainly help us to avoid unnecessary squabbling. One thing we should try to establish along with the office of Poll Master is a set of guidelines of what constitutes a good, fair poll. Obviously, that will need to be interpreted by the Poll Master, but it will at least give a starting point.

I have an issue with the current espionage poll, this is not an attempt to say the poll is illegitimate, to attack talonschild, or to re-ignite the debate, it's just a convenient example. I'm glad we have the opportunity to discuss issues like these now, before we get too deep into the game, and poll standards throw a huge wrench into things. This line in the original post:

Perhaps I oughta rephrase. What is your preferred espionage setting in an ideal world?

That phrasing leads to a problem of interpretation for the poll. "In an ideal world", implies that there are no consequences for changing our vote, it divorces the issue of what the setting should be, from if we should actually vote to change the setting.

I can imagine two entirely different poll results if you asked "Should we change our vote on espionage" vs. the current phrasing of the poll, because you're asking about two different issues. There are certain to be players of the opinion that banning CSM would be a better way to play the game, but that consequnses of changing our vote at the last minute are too costly and not worth changing the setting.

Not to mention the fact that this line was added as an edit to the poll after voting had begun. Any votes cast before the edit require a different interpretation from those cast afterwards.

The main problem this line invites is how to interpret the poll, does this poll dictate, or inform? Some will look at the results of the poll and say this is a clear majority we MUST change our vote. Others will see the poll as merely a gauge of our opinion, which still allows wiggle room to those that need to implement the decision. I've seen civil wars start in democracy games when two groups of people interpret the results of a poll differently, even if the poll is of almost no consequence. That's why a poll master is critical, to keep us from killing each other.

I'll begin a list of guidelines for good polls. I doubt I'll hit everything, so if anyone wants to add to it feel free.

- The original post of the poll should be neutrally worded and shouldn't encourage voting for one side or the other.

- The original post should be complete when first posted, edits should not occur once voting has begun.

- The purpose of the poll should be clearly explained in the OP. (Is this an opinion poll to gauge where we stand before we make our decision, or is this poll definitive, and the result will be our decision?)

- If the poll will make a decision for the team, the requirements for a decision must be clearly stated. (Plurality, Run-off of X top choices, simple majority, 2/3 majority, etc)

-The list of choices should be appropriately chosen, along with the requirements for a decision, in order to avoid disenfranchising an option. (Imagine a poll: What is your favorite color? Red, Light Blue, Blue, Dark Blue, Sky Blue, Azure.... Even a team that vastly prefers blue may have a plurality vote for red if the blues are split enough different ways, and what of the completely ignored greens? If that level of resolution is required for blue, a runoff can also solve this problem)

- A poll should strive to be as simple as possible, avoiding hypotheticals, lengthy descriptions, etc

 

[talonschild]

The problems with the poll are my fault. I had no intention of changing our vote - I believe it is too late for that. Dies have been cast. The intent was to learn for next time, to facilitate an actual, proper discussion. The lack of clarity was an issue I hope not to repeat.

Future polls will have more attention paid to clarity - and most if not all will not deal in hypotheticals. Those that do will clearly be marked as such.

 

[Bowsling]

I agree with Grant.

We should also make polls public, unless it is personal, such as a ministerial vote. Those who vote a certain way are held accountable for their votes. That way, we don't get divisive politicking silliness. No players messing around with polls or other ugly stuff.

EDIT: X-Post with talon. Don't get down on yourself. It's very easy to make small mistakes like that. I don't think I've ever created a proper poll in a democracy game. I don't even try anymore.

 

[Caledorn]

I foresee much trouble with polls. We need to establish a consensus that polls will only be used for decisions that can wait several days with a resolution.

Take the following examples:

* We meet Team Mysterious X, and they send us a diplomatic missive. We have agreed that we need to poll things before making a decision for the team, so we cannot respond for several days. The team agrees that we wish to try to ally with them, but in the meanwhile Team Stalwart Y has already answered a missive from Team Mysterious X who is no longer interested in allying with us.

* A choice needs to be made in war whether to move our troops to the eastern or western chokepoint. We don't manage to decide in time for the turn to swap and lose precious time and moves in a war situation.

* We have a city that is prime target for building a wonder, but we need to poll which one first. We are unable to reach consensus and lose the wonder by one or two turns to a different team.

I'm sure everyone sees where I'm going with this.

What we need to do if we want to use polls for decisions is make rules for what we should poll in.advance. And rules for what is the turn players' discretion. It's a lot of initial bureaucracy, but in the end we will have a clearly defined set of rules that gives our turn players, diplomat(s) etc a consistent knowledge of what their limits are.

I may be stating the obvious now, and people from heavily democratic teams in previous MTDG games may find this redundant - but it is better to say this so we're 100% certain we're prepared to deal with any eventualities.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bowsling]

In the end, yes, it should come down to whoever has the authority - that's what they're there for.

If we want to build a wonder, but can't decide where, the turnplayer decides. Simple as that.