The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[Diamondeye]

Okay, "no looking before posting" policy that is?

What about discussion of starting positions? Like first 24 hours there won't be posted too much spoiler info outside spoilers so one can discuss the start/starting thoughts?

 

[Winston Hughes]

On the choice of save, might it work to have players pick a game for closer inspection, based on what they've seen in the reports, the discussion, and any saves they've glanced at?

If it looks like a good choice, the player can then report back with the reasons, and formally nominate that save for the vote.

If they don't think it'd be a good choice (or are still unsure), then they set it aside, and look at what one of the other unnominated saves has to offer.

If none of the remaining saves fits the bill, or the player doesn't have time to keep looking, then he/she does not need to make a nomination.

Then, once the deadline is reached, each voter (roster players only?) can look at the nominated saves and make a choice.

Or would that be too confusing?

 

[Diamondeye]

*sigh* I think it is a bad idea to have votes and nominations and such, I mean, we are going to play a round a week and three days discussion is rather short time for determining the better save and then running a poll. I think what works best is that, once deadline is reached, each player simply replies and tells which saves he likes the best, and why, and then the roster players decide the best ball according to the public opinion. Does that sound good or am I completely off track?

 

[Bleys]

I have some ideas rolling around in my head.

First of all, I really feel this first game is a very poor example of how this format is going to work. There was no real choices here. GLH + Trade Route Economy is the ONLY feasible plan. Had only a couple small things been different, like we had an AI on our (bigger) island, or the closest AI wasnt PRO, or we actually had more room to REX, there would have been a lot more to discuss, analyze, and "vote on".

You already see the "No viewing the game thread until your save is posted" idea. That will help a lot. Reports and Screenies in spoilers still, for space and such, but discussion among the thread followers is key to our format. This rule should apply to EVERYONE who wants to be considered a Guest Best Baller, as well as the Current Roster players.

But I think we need a way to consider a Guest player or two each round, as well as the roster players. If we dont, then it really isnt much more than a Complicated SG. Perhaps we should be open to the idea that if a shadow save shows real promise, then we will consider taking it.

Or, we have 5 Roster players currently, perhaps we go with "Each round will have 5 Roster players and 1 Guest player, that Guest will be rotated among those shadow players who have played the strongest games" or something. 6 saves "voted on" (no poll thread, just a straw-poll among the people following the game thread). This would encourage shadow games, as each round WILL include at least one non-regular-roster player.

All in all, though, I am very excited and very optimistic about the future of this idea. These things are minor cosmetics, the core of the plan and the idea itself are very solid. Well done, mate. I am honored to be a part of this project. I have no issues giving up my "Roster" spot for a round or two in an effort to encourage shadow players and followers to contribute. A community is only as strong as its membership, and I think in order to continue to have a strong following, we need to include the active shadowers and kibitzers as much as we can.

 

[r_rolo1]

I was thinking more on 7 saves for each round....

Remember that our ( the roster ) part in here is to provide reports and saves to not stall the game or to force between 2 or 3 saves... giving that both diamond and hermit already said that they have time management problems coming in soon, it might be better to do like this:

- Roster players provide their saves and the reports

- From the guests ( p.s it would be required some standarts, like a decent report ) it is chosen the bests saves and picked the necessary number to fulfill 7 saves ( normally it would be 2, but in case of RL intervene on the side of one of the roster players, it can be more )

-Saves go to vote

I think it is a balanced aproach to the problem.....

 

[Winston Hughes]

My (half-baked) nominations plan was based on the notion that more than four or five saves would be too much. But if you think seven is manageable, then it sounds good to me.

However it works, though, it'll be crucial that the rules are made crystal clear at the beginning of each game - including who decides which saves are put up for the vote.

As you should all be aware, compared to the SG forum, this place is a bit more anarchic and a lot less familiar, which means you can't really afford to leave things unspoken as you might there.

So, having one person take responsibility for any key decisions, and for clarifying the rules where necessary, would make things much more straightforward. He could appoint a deputy when he's going to be absent for more than a day or two.

I remind you that democracy works best in small, familiar groups - like in the SG forum. On a forum like this, however, I'd say it's going to need a dictator.

 

[Refar]

Actually even in the "small familiar" SG forum i had the feeling that the games were running smoother if a active host imposed a little bit of "dictatorship". Like restraining long reaching discussions that went out of the scope of the game by making a "command decision" for example.

Another thing you might want to give a thought to would be a "Standard Report Summary" - like some crucial and comparable data collected in a block at the end of the report. Like Winstons compiled statistics from all submitted saves in the thread.
It would straighten the workflow, if everyone just did it himself - filling a premade standard perhaps - and put it in the End of his report.

 

[r_rolo1]

Actually even in the "small familiar" SG forum i had the feeling that the games were running smoother if a active host imposed a little bit of "dictatorship". Like restraining long reaching discussions that went out of the scope of the game by making a "command decision" for example.

That I have to agree... I've seen pretty nasty discussions in SG ( Mutineer , for a example ,was widely known by his lack of "political correcteness" .... ) and a strong SG leader ( like ,for a example, GreyFox ) clearly helps the game to run smoother.

Another thing you might want to give a thought to would be a "Standard Report Summary" - like some crucial and comparable data collected in a block at the end of the report. Like Winstons compiled statistics from all submitted saves in the thread.
It would straighten the workflow, if everyone just did it himself - filling a premade standard perhaps - and put it in the End of his report.

A idea that I was brewing to myself already

Something like:

- F1 screen
- Techs and glance
- List of wonders
- Current deals

and some other stuff that I can't remember now

 

[Nares]

I remind you that democracy works best in small, familiar groups

I just felt a need to quote this.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

and some other stuff that I can't remember now

F5 (Military Advisor)
F9 (Demographics)

 

[Winston Hughes]

I've seen pretty nasty discussions in SG

It always seems so peaceful and friendly whenever I pay it a visit. Even acidsatyr seemed to tone things down in his SGs.

But I do remember Mutineer, and it doesn't surprise me that he caused trouble. He was what we Essex boys refer to as 'a right nutjob'. Highly entertaining, though (if utterly incomprehensible much of the time).

 

[Diamondeye]

I have some ideas rolling around in my head.

First of all, I really feel this first game is a very poor example of how this format is going to work. There was no real choices here. GLH + Trade Route Economy is the ONLY feasible plan. Had only a couple small things been different, like we had an AI on our (bigger) island, or the closest AI wasnt PRO, or we actually had more room to REX, there would have been a lot more to discuss, analyze, and "vote on".

Yeah agree, definately. That said, I believe water maps are a bit easier, nice for me who is not really comfortable at Monarch yet.

You already see the "No viewing the game thread until your save is posted" idea. That will help a lot. Reports and Screenies in spoilers still, for space and such, but discussion among the thread followers is key to our format. This rule should apply to EVERYONE who wants to be considered a Guest Best Baller, as well as the Current Roster players.

This was some of the ideas we toiled with, and I believe the conclusion was that the first couple of games are played with roster players only, but if a shadow game is considered best, it is played as the best ball. After the first couple of games, we start the "featured player"-feature, with one or two of the good (read: Active, wellplaying and wellwriting) players per game.

But I think we need a way to consider a Guest player or two each round, as well as the roster players. If we dont, then it really isnt much more than a Complicated SG. Perhaps we should be open to the idea that if a shadow save shows real promise, then we will consider taking it.

See above.

Or, we have 5 Roster players currently, perhaps we go with "Each round will have 5 Roster players and 1 Guest player, that Guest will be rotated among those shadow players who have played the strongest games" or something. 6 saves "voted on" (no poll thread, just a straw-poll among the people following the game thread). This would encourage shadow games, as each round WILL include at least one non-regular-roster player.

See above: Featured players. We'll get to that

All in all, though, I am very excited and very optimistic about the future of this idea. These things are minor cosmetics, the core of the plan and the idea itself are very solid. Well done, mate. I am honored to be a part of this project. I have no issues giving up my "Roster" spot for a round or two in an effort to encourage shadow players and followers to contribute. A community is only as strong as its membership, and I think in order to continue to have a strong following, we need to include the active shadowers and kibitzers as much as we can.

Yeah that's my impression as well. And don't worry, you can always say if you have trouble with time, then we can catch a shadower to take your roster place

I was thinking more on 7 saves for each round....

Remember that our ( the roster ) part in here is to provide reports and saves to not stall the game or to force between 2 or 3 saves... giving that both diamond and hermit already said that they have time management problems coming in soon, it might be better to do like this:

My time problems are kind of limited to this round and the next, and then again some time in June/July where the vacation starts

- Roster players provide their saves and the reports

- From the guests ( p.s it would be required some standarts, like a decent report ) it is chosen the bests saves and picked the necessary number to fulfill 7 saves ( normally it would be 2, but in case of RL intervene on the side of one of the roster players, it can be more )

-Saves go to vote

I think it is a balanced aproach to the problem.....

Yeah, agree. A save with no report is not encouraged, and I, atleast, have some resent against picking a save without a proper report. Also, we could agree that players not writing reports should not be "featured players", once that rolls around, aye?

My (half-baked) nominations plan was based on the notion that more than four or five saves would be too much. But if you think seven is manageable, then it sounds good to me.

However it works, though, it'll be crucial that the rules are made crystal clear at the beginning of each game - including who decides which saves are put up for the vote.

Okay. In case I did not make it clear, I will have the final word in this first game, but only as a tiebreaker. Other than that, I rely on the other roster players and readers/shadowers for opinions and analysis.

As you should all be aware, compared to the SG forum, this place is a bit more anarchic and a lot less familiar, which means you can't really afford to leave things unspoken as you might there.

So, having one person take responsibility for any key decisions, and for clarifying the rules where necessary, would make things much more straightforward. He could appoint a deputy when he's going to be absent for more than a day or two.

We kind of started this in the spirit that we were doing it together all five - exactly with our mind on that there should always be atleast 3 or 4 active roster players to take decisions. If you want that kind of a system, for the first game, I will be making decisions with OTAKUjbski as my deputy .

I remind you that democracy works best in small, familiar groups - like in the SG forum. On a forum like this, however, I'd say it's going to need a dictator.

Is Consulate good enough? A very small circle of dictator-like figures

Actually even in the "small familiar" SG forum i had the feeling that the games were running smoother if a active host imposed a little bit of "dictatorship". Like restraining long reaching discussions that went out of the scope of the game by making a "command decision" for example.

Another thing you might want to give a thought to would be a "Standard Report Summary" - like some crucial and comparable data collected in a block at the end of the report. Like Winstons compiled statistics from all submitted saves in the thread.
It would straighten the workflow, if everyone just did it himself - filling a premade standard perhaps - and put it in the End of his report.

I liked Winstons' statistics well. I would encourage people to use the BUG mod and the Autolog built therein, as it notes all things worth noting, and saves it as a forum format text (see my or other roster palyers' reports, I believe several of the others include the log in a spoiler aswell). On top of that, some advisor screens, important screenies, war screenies and such (educational material is appreciated for the less experienced players).

That I have to agree... I've seen pretty nasty discussions in SG ( Mutineer , for a example ,was widely known by his lack of "political correcteness" .... ) and a strong SG leader ( like ,for a example, GreyFox ) clearly helps the game to run smoother.

A idea that I was brewing to myself already

Something like:

- F1 screen
- Techs and glance
- List of wonders
- Current deals

and some other stuff that I can't remember now

Agree, and with OTAKU aswell, put the Autolog, some graphs, and a screenie every now and then (founding Hamburg, Switching tiles, attacking Madrid, whatever) would do a great bit of good for a report.

 

[r_rolo1]

Do not get elluded by the civil tone of the conversations, Winston.... sometimes there are strong divergences in the team about what path to follow ( I remember one OCC where I made the Moai when most of the team wanted to build IW later .... time ), but as most of us already played with most of the other SG players, we choose ( well, sort of... ) to swallow and move on.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Is Consulate good enough? A very small circle of dictator-like figures

It just about satisfies my need for order and discipline. Sir.

 

[Bleys]

It just about satisfies my need for order and discipline. Sir.

No worries mate, its one of your qualities that I think we actually LIKE, I am a very "easygoing" kind of guy, and flow quite well with whatever path gets chosen. That doesnt mean I am not a good leader, I am just the kind of leader that gets others to follow his direction while making them think its THEIR idea in the first place

 

[slobberinbear]

I suggest instead of a "vote," per se, that each roster member states his preference, and then one person (Chancellor of the week?) makes the decision which save to use. The Chancellorship would then rotate to the next person the following week.

That way, everyone gets a say, but a decision is easily made.

 

[Winston Hughes]

No worries mate, its one of your qualities that I think we actually LIKE

Meaning you don't like most of my qualities? I'm deeply hurt.

I am a very "easygoing" kind of guy

hehe, so am I. Probably too easygoing, in fact.

I just have a rather odd sense of humour.

Come to think of it, maybe that's one of the qualities you don't like...

 

[Diamondeye]

I suggest instead of a "vote," per se, that each roster member states his preference, and then one person (Chancellor of the week?) makes the decision which save to use. The Chancellorship would then rotate to the next person the following week.

That way, everyone gets a say, but a decision is easily made.

I think Chancellor title should shift per game and not per round, but that is a minor detail

 

[OTAKUjbski]

First of all, I really feel this first game is a very poor example of how this format is going to work. There was no real choices here.

Just in case it comes up later or is in the back of somebody's mind, this game shouldn't be used as an excuse next game to "quality check" the save before we roll with it.

If anything, I think accepting starts like this makes the format better. After all, how many times have you been in situations like this offline only to find no online analogue to base your play off of?

Case-in-point: The LHC series. Prior to that series and its insights, I'd venture a strong guess most people rerolled the map after determining isolation, because nobody knew wtf to do! (see ALC 15)

(BTW, I'm secretly hoping this is a B&S or M&S with the other civs with sizeable expansion room!)

This was some of the ideas we toiled with, and I believe the conclusion was that the first couple of games are played with roster players only ...

So basically, the lock on the game (so to speak) is 'soft'? That is to say, we (the current roster players) aren't required to look at non-roster player saves but are definitely encouraged to do so?

So non-roster players essentially play and submit reports 'at their own risk'?

That sounds good to me. If a player is active in Game n, then maybe they'll be on the roster or as a featured player for Game n+1.

Does that mean the progression for a player wanting to join the roster is 1) contributor, 2) featured player, 3) roster player?

A save with no report is worthless.

^^^ fixed.

Saves without complete, coherent reports should be summarily dismissed, IMO.

I suggest instead of a "vote," per se, that each roster member states his preference, and then one person (Chancellor of the week?) makes the decision which save to use. The Chancellorship would then rotate to the next person the following week.

That way, everyone gets a say, but a decision is easily made.

If you want that kind of a system, for the first game, I will be making decisions with OTAKUjbski as my deputy .

That makes sense. One roster player will start the game thread, and that player will be the for the whole game -- who will then also determine a 'deputy' for that game in case of absence or whatever.

The decides all of the 'best ball saves' and regulates any discussion or posts which might get out of hand. The deputy basically twiddles his thumbs until the is absent or is needed to break a tie.

Sounds like a great idea.

Is Consulate good enough? A very small circle of dictator-like figures

I believe the term is Oligarchy.

 

[Bleys]

Meaning you don't like most of my qualities? I'm deeply hurt.

I just have a rather odd sense of humour.

Come to think of it, maybe that's one of the qualities you don't like...

LOL nonsense Winston, I am very excited to see you taking a strong active position on this format. I think your a strong player and a top-notch poster who is well organized and can post cohesive, easy to understand threads. No worries at all.

As far as choosing saves, etc, I like the ideas we have so far, but have little to offer with regard to bureaucratic ideas. I just want to play