Upcoming polls

[SilentConfusion]

I would think the First Assistant Diplomat would be there to assist the Head Diplomat in any way possible. In the absence of the Head Diplomat, the First Assistant would assume the duties and responsibilities of the Head Diplomat until his return.

We could also have a Second and a Third Assistant Diplomat, who would round out the Diplomat's staff.

I am of the opinion that we do need a person who can step in if the diplomat is absent. I don't care if you want to call that person First Assistant or something else. I really don't think we need to number all of the diplomatic staff. I also don't think we need to set the limit of diplomatic assistants. I suggest we vote on an alternate (or alternative, if you think that sounds more hip) diplomat, who's is described as having the authority to take the place of the diplomat in the case that the diplomat cannot be reached in a reasonable amount of time. This position would be automatically on the diplomatic staff, and as such would aid the diplomat.

 

[wideyedwanderer]

Allow me to explain myself better.

I don't think we should set limits to the number of assistants. I number them because what if the Diplomat and the First Assistant are absent? [It could turn ugly really quickly if we have the rest of the diplomatic staff scrambling and sending out multiple messages to the same team.]

(Though I suppose in that case the Captain could step in to fill the Diplomat duties until something else could be worked out.)

 

[SilentConfusion]

Allow me to explain myself better.

I don't think we should set limits to the number of assistants. I number them because what if the Diplomat and the First Assistant are absent? [It could turn ugly really quickly if we have the rest of the diplomatic staff scrambling and sending out multiple messages to the same team.]

(Though I suppose in that case the Captain could step in to fill the Diplomat duties until something else could be worked out.)

Ok, just making sure. I think that the idea of having the captain take over that role in the absence of the diplomat makes sense. That is how we decided to deal with the Poll-Master position.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It might be better if we had one simple, uniform rule that addresses every possible "What if the X Officer is unavailable?" type of question. A rule that says, something like...

Any time an officer is out of contact and we need someone to fulfill, their duties, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected.

So for example... if the Captain was not available, and there was a tied,closed poll, the Poll-Master would make the tie-breaker vote, because the Poll-Master was the second officer to be elected. If the Captain and the Poll Master were both unavailable, then the Diplomat would make the tie breaker vote, because the Diplomat was the third officer to be elected... and so on. This way we have one simple rule that covers all situations.

So I propose the following poll:

Officer Responsibilities - Turn 7
Shall we adopt the following Rule?

"Any time an officer is unavailable and we need someone to fulfill their duties, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected."

Yes

No

Example:
If the Captain was not available, and there was a tied,closed poll, the Poll-Master would make the tie-breaker vote, because the Poll-Master was the second officer to be elected. If the Captain and the Poll Master were both unavailable, then the Diplomat would make the tie breaker vote, because the Diplomat was the third officer to be elected... and so on.

One question that AMAZONs might have about this rule is what happens if we elect a new person to an old office?... like if we elect a new Captain? In that case, I would say just follow the same rule... Since the new Captain is the newest elected officer, they would move to the bottom of the list, and the Poll-Master would be the first in line to fill-in for an absent Diplomat.

Hopefully this is all very simple and clear.

EDIT: I just realized that this rule as-written might conflict with the rule we already have covering Poll-Master absences. The conflict is resolved by combining part of Lord Civius's proposal with mine... which I have done Here. So ignore this poll request in favor of the later one... THX.

 

[Lord Civius]

I like where you are going with it SS though I think we can further simplify chain of command.

If any elected official is unable to fulfill his/her responsibilities the Captain will assume the absentees duties until either the official returns or a new official is elected to the position.

or

If any elected official is unable to fulfill his/her responsibilities his/her deputy will assume the absentees duties until either the elected official returns or a new official is elected to the position. In the event the deputy is also absent the Captain is the de facto fill in official.

I am in favor of the second choice and the election or appointment of deputies to all elected officials.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I like where you are going with it SS though I think we can further simplify chain of command... I am in favor of the second choice and the election or appointment of deputies to all elected officials.

What you are proposing would require that we have three more elections for three deputy Officers, correct? IDK, but that seems LESS simplified, rather than more simplified.

What I am proposing does not require any additional elections, or any redundant Officers. We can save our motivated personel for New positions when they become needed/available... like: General, or Default Turnplayer, or Recruiting Officer, City Governor, Espionage Officer, GP Point Officer, Culture Officer, Screenshot Officer, etc., etc.,...

There are so many new responsibilities that will emerge as we get deeper into the game. I am a little concerned that with "deputies" we will end up with all our most enthusiastic AMAZONs just languishing in deputy positions where they never get to do anything. Rather than give people "back-up" positions, why not just wait until we have an actual responsibility for them to fill?

 

[SilentConfusion]

@ Sommerswerd. Looks like a fair poll to me. I'll post my opinions on the matter in the poll thread when it is created.

 

[Lord Civius]

What you are proposing would require that we have three more elections for three deputy Officers, correct? IDK, but that seems LESS simplified, rather than more simplified.

No, one elected official (diplomat) and one deputy. The captain of the team would be third in line for every elected official not just diplomat, sort of a safety net that would rarely if ever be used. I see your point about a deputy for each elected official being rather cumbersome and take enthusiastic players away from future leadership positions. I just thought this would be an easy way to form; leaders (elected officials), their back-up (deputy) and just incase they are both M.I.A. there would be no confusion, the Team Captain steps in.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think we can vote on our next tech soon. I know what I want, but anyone who disagrees deserves a fair chance to vote for whatever they want... Its the AMAZON way

We also need to vote soon on where our second city will be. There have been several ideas, so we might need time for a run-off.

I forgot that Poll Master Norton I was away for the weekend, I will go ahead and put up the poll on handling Officer absences.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If any elected official is unable to fulfill his/her responsibilities the Captain will assume the absentees duties until either the official returns or a new official is elected to the position.

How about this combination of Lord Civius's proposal and mine?

Officer Responsibilities - Turn 12
Shall we adopt the following Rule?

"Any time an officer is unavailable and we need someone to fulfill their duties, the Captain will assume the absent officer's duties. If the Captain is unavailable, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected."

Yes

No

Examples:

A. If the Captain was not available, and there was a tied,closed poll, the Poll-Master would make the tie-breaker vote, because the Poll-Master was the second officer to be elected. If the Captain and the Poll Master were both unavailable, then the Diplomat would make the tie breaker vote, because the Diplomat was the third officer to be elected... and so on.

B. If the Diplomat is unavailable, and diplomacy needs to be conducted, then the Captain will conduct the diplomacy. If the Diplomat and the Captain are unavailable, then the Poll Master will conduct the diplomacy, because the Poll Master was the next officer elected... and so on.

C. If the Poll Master is unavailable and a poll needs to be reviewed for fairness, then the Captain will review the poll. If the Poll Master and the Captain are both unavailable, then the Diplomat will review the poll, because the Diplomat was the next officer to be elected... and so on.

As a reminder, there should never be a situation where there is NOBODY to take care of a task... The AMAZON Constitution provides that:

Officers
As a default, turnplayers will handle things, but anyone can volunteer to fill an office on our team.

So even if ALL the elected officers were unavailable to handle a specific task, the turnplayer(s) would be responsible for it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is a suggestion for the City 2 location Poll. Other AMAZONs should feel free to add locations if they feel other locations should be considered.

City 2 Location Poll

Where Shall We Build our Second City?

Location A (Green)

Location B (Red)

Explanation of Choices
Location A - Grassland Forest, gives 3 sheep in the BFC
Location B - Plains Hill Forest, gives 4 sheep in the BFC

In the future, we might consider starting a new thread for discussion of the location of a new city, as there may be alot to talk about.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Suggested Language for our "Next Tech" Poll.

Next Tech Poll - Turn 17

What Shall We Research Next?

Mysticism - 8 Turns, 74
Pottery - 10 Turns, 119
Sailing - 15 Turns, 149
The Wheel - 9 Turns, 89
Writing - 15 Turns, 179
Mining - 8 Turns, 74
Archery - 8 Turns, 89
Horseback Riding - 32 Turns, 373

 

[Norton I]

I'll put up the tech poll soon.

One remark about the line-of-command poll: right now the poll is simply a yes/no to this option, while I believe that some people prefer a "deputy" system. Wouldn't it be better to have a poll where you can choose between two system? One being the Sommerswerd/Lord Civius proposal, and the second being the Deputy/Alternative diplomat proposal that was brought up by various other people? It's a bit more democratic that way...

We still have plenty of time to vote for the city location, and I think it's better to have the discussion before the poll than during the poll, to prevent premature voting... so this poll can wait until we are actually building a settler. There is a lot of discussion on the subject already in the turn thread, but maybe we should open a dedicated city placement thread so it's easier to find it back.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'll put up the tech poll soon.

Thanks

One remark about the line-of-command poll: right now the poll is simply a yes/no to this option, while I believe that some people prefer a "deputy" system.

As SilCon pointed out. We have already voted that there should be One Diplomat. IMO, the "Deputy-Diplomat" is just another way of getting multiple Diplomats when we already voted to have one. So I don't really think its fair to elect additional Diplomats when we just voted to have one Diplomat.

If the real issue is "What do we do if the officer (Diplomat) is unavailable?" then we don't really need to elect a second Diplomat. All we need to do is have a catch all rule for officer absences. Otherwise, what do we do if the deputy is unavailable? Elect a second deputy? And what is second deputy is unavailable? Elect a third deputy? (As I stated above & elsewhere) We already have a default rule in the Constitution... Turnplayers handle things. So we really don't need to elect default/backup officers at all.

Wouldn't it be better to have a poll where you can choose between two system? One being the Sommerswerd/Lord Civius proposal, and the second being the Deputy/Alternative diplomat proposal that was brought up by various other people? It's a bit more democratic that way...

If we did the poll that way (which I would say is unfair for the reasons above), we should also include the choice "No change - Leave the system the way it is. In a default situation, turnplayers handle things."

We still have plenty of time to vote for the city location, and I think it's better to have the discussion before the poll than during the poll, to prevent premature voting... so this poll can wait until we are actually building a settler. There is a lot of discussion on the subject already in the turn thread, but maybe we should open a dedicated city placement thread so it's easier to find it back.

I agree. This is a very good Idea.

 

[Lord Civius]

After Sommerswerds clarification on back-ups...

AMAZON Constitution

Officers
As a default, turnplayers will handle things, but anyone can volunteer to fill an office on our team.

there is no longer IMHO a need to vote on the deputy issue. Officers can appoint assistant(s) to help them in their duties but the turnplayer is the official back-up. I would be in favor of giving the turnplayer the power to appoint a temporary officer to the position until either the officer returns or a new officer is elected.

 

[Norton I]

As SilCon pointed out. We have already voted that there should be One Diplomat. IMO, the "Deputy-Diplomat" is just another way of getting multiple Diplomats when we already voted to have one. So I don't really think its fair to elect additional Diplomats when we just voted to have one Diplomat.

The one or multiple diplomat vote was to decide whether one diplomat would handle all contact with all civs or we would have one-diplomat-per-civ. That is different from the current issue: what happens if the diplomat is unavailable. And the choice is basically to either have the already elected officers as next-in-command, or a newly elected "alternative diplomat" as next-in-command. These options are both viable.

Personally I agree with the argument that it is better to give people a proper job than a backup job in which they just wait around and do nothing most of the time... especially since there will be plenty of jobs coming in the future... but many people seem to support the "alternative diplomat" solution (or at least did so, and have not indicated that they changed their minds), and I think it is only fair to offer it as an option for the poll too.

My problem with a simple yes/no question is that there is actually not really something to vote on, because "no" doesn't really mean anything... it just means the issue is unresolved and we need to start the discussion again. I'd rather have an alternative solution than a simple "no".

It might be useful if some of the "alternative diplomat" supporters speak up and give their view on this issue.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The one or multiple diplomat vote was to decide whether one diplomat would handle all contact with all civs or we would have one-diplomat-per-civ.

As I said earlier, I don't really think the issue is that different. I consider the issues linked. To illustrate... Are any AMAZONs who are asking for "deputy" elections different from the AMAZONs who wanted multiple Diplomats? Probably few or none, because the "deputy" issue is just a re-imagination of the dual-diplomat.

the current issue: what happens if the diplomat is unavailable. And the choice is basically to either have the already elected officers as next-in-command, or a newly elected "alternative diplomat" as next-in-command. These options are both viable.

No, here are the choices. Choice 1 is using the Rule that we already use to cover the absence of the Poll Master to all the offices... i.e., the Captain fills in, and if the Captain is unavailable, the other elected officers fill in.

Choice 2 is just sticking with the default rule in the Constitution... i.e., As a default, Turnplayers handle things when there is no elected officer to do so.

So the choice is between 1. extending the Poll Master rule to all offices.
and 2. keeping the current system as provided in the Constitution, (where turnplayers handle things as a default).

The other option you mention, the "elected deputy," is not on the table, because Lord Civius was the only one who asked for a poll on that option, and Lord Civius has withdrawn his request.

many people seem to support the "alternative diplomat" solution (or at least did so, and have not indicated that they changed their minds), and I think it is only fair to offer it as an option for the poll too.

Well that is certainly your job as Poll Master, to decide whether the polls are fair and try to make them fair before they are posted. So if you feel strongly that the option should be included in the poll, then of course I defer to your judgment. Include the other option when you post the poll, or suggest the language to include and I will post it. I am just voicing my opinion.

My problem with a simple yes/no question is that there is actually not really something to vote on, because "no" doesn't really mean anything... it just means the issue is unresolved and we need to start the discussion again. I'd rather have an alternative solution than a simple "no".

A "No" vote does not mean that the issue unresolved.... Quite to the contrary, as I have already said previously, the AMAZON Constitution already has a default procedure for the absence of a Diplomat or any other Officer.

Officers
As a default, turnplayers will handle things, but anyone can volunteer to fill an office on our team.

So a "No" vote does resolve the issue. A "No" vote means that we stick with the default rule in the Constitution, giving turnplayers the default responsiblity for handling diplomacy in the absence of a diplomat.

We currently have 4 turnplayers and two backup turnplayers... so that is 6 people, plenty of people to handle any "back-up needed" type of situation.

It might be useful if some of the "alternative diplomat" supporters speak up and give their view on this issue.

"Back-up" diplomat supporters have spoken up. See Lord Civius's comments above (stating that upon further consideration the back-up Diplomat is not needed).

 

[wideyedwanderer]

As I said earlier, I don't really think the issue is that different. I consider the issues linked. To illustrate... Are any AMAZONs who are asking for "deputy" elections different from the AMAZONs who wanted multiple Diplomats? Probably few or none, because the "deputy" issue is just a re-imagination of the dual-diplomat.

Actually, yes, I voted for one diplomat, but also thought it necessary to have a deputy, only in case the diplomat became absent. However, if we can agree on some sort of clearly defined line of succession, I agree that a deputy diplomat is unnecessary. [I think it would suffice to have the other officers fill in, in the order that they were elected.] The diplomat can still choose assistants, but these would not be "official" officer positions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

After Sommerswerds clarification on back-ups...there is no longer IMHO a need to vote on the deputy issue.

if we can agree on some sort of clearly defined line of succession, I agree that a deputy diplomat is unnecessary.

So in light of the above comments, are we proceeding with this poll:

Spoiler :

Officer Responsibilities - Turn 14
Shall we adopt the following Rule?

"Any time an officer is unavailable and we need someone to fulfill their duties, the Captain will assume the absent officer's duties. If the Captain is unavailable, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected."

Yes

No

What a "Yes" vote means:
A. If the Captain was not available, and there was a tied,closed poll, the Poll-Master would make the tie-breaker vote, because the Poll-Master was the second officer to be elected. If the Captain and the Poll Master were both unavailable, then the Diplomat would make the tie breaker vote, because the Diplomat was the third officer to be elected... and so on.

B. If the Diplomat is unavailable, and diplomacy needs to be conducted, then the Captain will conduct the diplomacy. If the Diplomat and the Captain are unavailable, then the Poll Master will conduct the diplomacy, because the Poll Master was the next officer elected... and so on.

C. If the Poll Master is unavailable and a poll needs to be reviewed for fairness, then the Captain will review the poll. If the Poll Master and the Captain are both unavailable, then the Diplomat will review the poll, because the Diplomat was the next officer to be elected... and so on.

What a "No" vote means:
The AMAZON Constitution provides that:

Officers
As a default, turnplayers will handle things, but anyone can volunteer to fill an office on our team.

So currently if the elected officer is unavailable to handle a specific task, the turnplayer(s) are responsible for it. The only exception is the Poll Master. We have already voted to make the Captain (or some other elected officer) responsible for the Poll Master's duties when the Poll Master is unavailable.

Or Something like this:

Spoiler :

Officer Responsibilities - Turn 14
How Shall We Handle the Absence of Officers Besides the Poll Master?

We already have a rule covering what happens when the Poll Master is unavailable. The Captain (or some other elected officer) fills in. This poll is to decide how to handle the absence of other officers.

1. Captain fills in, followed by elected officers
2. Elect Deputy officers to fill in for absent officers
3. Stick with the Default Rule - Turnplayers handle things

Explanation of Choices

Choice 1 -Captain fills in, followed by elected officers
"Any time an officer is unavailable and we need someone to fulfill their duties, the Captain will assume the absent officer's duties. If the Captain is unavailable, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected."

Examples
A. If the Captain was not available, and there was a tied,closed poll, the Poll-Master would make the tie-breaker vote, because the Poll-Master was the second officer to be elected. If the Captain and the Poll Master were both unavailable, then the Diplomat would make the tie breaker vote, because the Diplomat was the third officer to be elected... and so on.

B. If the Diplomat is unavailable, and diplomacy needs to be conducted, then the Captain will conduct the diplomacy. If the Diplomat and the Captain are unavailable, then the Poll Master will conduct the diplomacy, because the Poll Master was the next officer elected... and so on.

C. If the Poll Master is unavailable and a poll needs to be reviewed for fairness, then the Captain will review the poll. If the Poll Master and the Captain are both unavailable, then the Diplomat will review the poll, because the Diplomat was the next officer to be elected... and so on.

Choice 2 - Elect Deputy officers to fill in for absent officers
We will elect Deputies for our elected officers. If any elected officer is unable to fulfill their responsibilities, their deputy will assume the absentee's duties.

Since we already have a rule covering what happens when the Poll Master is unavailable. This rule will only apply to other elected officers.

Choice 3 - Stick with the Default Rule - Turnplayers handle things
We already have a rule covering what happens when the Poll Master is unavailable. The Captain (or some other elected officer) fills in. However, when other officers are absent, we only have the default rule in the AMAZON Constitution:

Officers
As a default, turnplayers will handle things, but anyone can volunteer to fill an office on our team.

So currently if the elected officer is unavailable to handle a specific task, the turnplayer(s) are responsible for it. The only exception is the Poll Master, since we have already voted to make the Captain (or some other elected officer) responsible for the Poll Master's duties when the Poll Master is unavailable.

 

[wideyedwanderer]

^ I like this poll except I think we should add something to choice 1 -

Choice 1 -Captain fills in, followed by elected officers
"Any time an officer is unavailable and we need someone to fulfill their duties, the Captain will assume the absent officer's duties. If the Captain is unavailable, the responsibility just passes to the other elected officers, in the order that they were elected. If all officers are unavailable, responsibility passes to the current turnplayer.

I doubt (and hope) it never comes to that, but I think we should have a plan just in case.