Posts: 23,436
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
So, now the game is starting to get underway, it's time to decide how the team ought to be run.
Maybe you want a team president, who has the final decision in what happens, elected every couple of months. Maybe you want a consulate where 3 people are elected to make the final decision after discussion on the forum. Maybe you want regular elections after so many months, or maybe you want them after so many turns.
Note: this isn't anything to do with the turn player, just on choosing a way to make a final decision that a turn player can then implement. A turn player is a separate responsibility that can either be held in conjunction with any other responsibility or not, depending on what that player wishes to do.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I like periodic election of 3 consuls. Consults vote among themselves to make decisions, and may make non-binding polls to get input. Is 25 turns a decent election cycle? No limit on re-elections.
Posts: 23,436
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
I've seen it done where each consul had a 3 month term, and there was one election every month; the first three consuls elected together, the one with the most votes serves for 4 months, second most votes gets 3 months and third most votes gets a 2 month term.
OTOH, I think this is a bit onerous for such a small team, the teams that used to do this had a membership close to a hundred.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
Not a bad idea, if the point is to ensure continuity between consuls. It should be stressed that the consuls assume primary responsibility for being on top of everything on a daily basis. I like the possibility of newbies getting a chance to step up this way, and I hope we'll have fierce elections! :duel:
Posts: 2,313
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2010
I vote for whatever is likely to cause the most dissension and rancor. ANGER!
Completed: SG2-Wonders or Else!; SG3-Monarch Can't Hold Me; WW3-Surviving Wolf; PBEM3-Replacement for Timmy of Khmer; PBEM11-Screwed Up Huayna Capac of Zulu; PBEM19-GES, Roland & Friends (Mansa of Egypt); SG4-Immortality Scares Me
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
I would prefer an iron-fisted dictator but I didn't see a signup for a tyranny game, so how about we trot out a triumvirate of strong men to lead this team for a while? We, the unwashed masses, can reserve the right to dissolve their authority via bloody revolt or a no confidence vote whenever we feel we need new leadership, or if we want a coup d'état to shake things up for the hell of it. Or maybe the elected consuls can vote each other out with a majority vote. Example: You're one of the consuls and the other two consuls hated your last post. Or your newest scheme just got one of our cities razed. Or....etc. You could be let go. Accountability! Just what we've always wanted from [strike]our oppressors[/strike] management.
Edit: Bonus points for the first consul of the triumvirate to successfully pull off a Napoleon.
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
As much fun as votes of no confidence would be, they don't really have a place in this game IMO. We're a small team and we're undeniably working together. Nobody gains anything from having power or defeating an opponent.
I think we should make a move on this, how about considering the consul system implemented if noone makes any serious objections for the next 24h? After that, we will need an election system! The fancier, the better ofc.
Posts: 10,043
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
Whats wrong with just turnplayer + voting?
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
There's nothing wrong with it. But what's more fun, abusing a turn player or an elected official? Who here has never wanted to abuse their elected officials?
I like Catwalk's ratification mechanism: If no one speaks up quickly we can consider this form of tyranny adopted. I heartily approve. And yeah maybe we don't have enough TEAM members to be constantly revolting and changing leadership. Just thought it would be fun. Maybe we can keep our leaders as long as the Greeks keep their finance ministers these days? But you guys aren't allowed to have heart attacks/strokes/whatever to beg off, back to work!
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I think it's in our best interests as a team to have a small group of players who are paying special attention to the game and assume primary responsibility for examining all issues. With a game like this, the risk is that all of us keep half an eye on the game. This system might also help encourage more players to speak up, as I imagine most of those of us who are active will get to serve a term as consul. I know I want to try my hand at it later on, preferrably with Lewwyn :war2:
|