Proposal: Inter-Team Council

[Hot Mustard]

After the events of December 1st, it is clear that there is a need for some kind of game authority outside of the teams. I propose an Inter-Team Council for this purpose.

The Council would be composed of 1 or 2 members from each team. They would be responsible for conducting, and deciding on, official OUT of game affairs, such as:

- Save file handling
- Save file turn around
- Maintaining important game information threads
- team details
- turn order and current save holder
- schedule
- Handling Inter-team disputes

They would have to have the power to punish teams that disobeyed Council orders (decisions). Something like having to skip a turn, maybe.

The council would discuss matters of import internally and then vote on them, one vote per member.

OK, that's the proposal - Discuss.

[Arnelos]

I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal... I wasn't here, but my impression of what I've been told about what has taken place is that there is a distinct lack of inter-team organization concerning the timing of turns and how to keep the game moving...

Considering I was just chatting with dejon about this idea, I guess it's no surprise I'm coming out to support him on it

[Panzer32]

I support this idea, although it is important to keep in mind the fact that teams have very limited membership. Some of the members cannot be involved very much due to RL/other interests. Creating more official positions puts more strain on the active members.

I do think we need a governing body to run the game, rather than just teams collaborating. I am just remarking on something in general, not specifics.

[notyoueither]

A council may be a good idea. Agreements to speed things along are wonderful.

Making teams skip a turn, or many other forms of punishment you can think of are not. I am not here to spend hundreds of hours in a project only to have victory tarnished, or defeat ensured by some vote among teams. Think about it. It would be open to the most vile forms of abuse by mob rule.

[notyoueither]

btw, from my experience such committees can be very slow to act. Getting everyone together can be a major undertaking.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal... I wasn't here, but my impression of what I've been told about what has taken place is that there is a distinct lack of inter-team organization concerning the timing of turns and how to keep the game moving...

Considering I was just chatting with dejon about this idea, I guess it's no surprise I'm coming out to support him on it

We finished the first turn in something like 6 hours. Several teams had to replay the turn because of a few people who were inexperienced with the PBEM system, but I don't think we need an Inquisition yet.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Panzer32
I support this idea, although it is important to keep in mind the fact that teams have very limited membership. Some of the members cannot be involved very much due to RL/other interests. Creating more official positions puts more strain on the active members.

I do think we need a governing body to run the game, rather than just teams collaborating. I am just remarking on something in general, not specifics.

I agree, Panzer32. I would support 1 member per team. The Council's duties would be largely "up-front" - coming up with the much needed OUT of game procedures/rules. Afterwards, they would just be stewards.

[Jon Miller]

I agree with NYE

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

- Save file handling

Isn't this up to each team? I am part of a team, I have to make the save available to my mates if only for the reason that they may need to play any given turn. I have not made the turn 1 save available to anyone, except the DG rep I mailed it to.

- Save file turn around

We already have a rule for this. 24 hours, isn't it?

- Maintaining important game information threads

Good idea, but people could just step forward as has usually happened.

- team details

Which details of my team do you wish to have some authority over?

- turn order and current save holder

Turn order is already set, no? The players of each team seem to be the likely holders of saves.

- schedule

Covered above, unless I am mistaken.

- Handling Inter-team disputes

What sort of disputes can arise outside of the game?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by notyoueither
A council may be a good idea. Agreements to speed things along are wonderful.

Making teams skip a turn, or many other forms of punishment you can think of are not. I am not here to spend hundreds of hours in a project only to have victory tarnished, or defeat ensured by some vote among teams. Think about it. It would be open to the most vile forms of abuse by mob rule.

I see your point, notyoueither. However, a powerless Council is precisely that - powerless. Have you any ideas on how agreed-on decisions, by Council or otherwise, might be enforced?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by notyoueither
- Save file handling

Isn't this up to each team? I am part of a team, I have to make the save available to my mates if only for the reason that they may need to play any given turn. I have not made the turn 1 save available to anyone, except the DG rep I mailed it to.

This was meant as loading instructions, to prevent accidents and cheating

- Save file turn around

We already have a rule for this. 24 hours, isn't it?

Always? What about for turn-rush weekend days?

- Maintaining important game information threads

Good idea, but people could just step forward as has usually happened.

Agreed.

- team details

Which details of my team do you wish to have some authority over?

- turn order and current save holder

Turn order is already set, no? The players of each team seem to be the likely holders of saves.

- schedule

Covered above, unless I am mistaken.

These were sub-points - examples of information, not all of it is set in stone.

- Handling Inter-team disputes

What sort of disputes can arise outside of the game?

Do we want to wait and find out?

I'm not saying the game desperately needs this, just that it may help. Especially for those that are not veterans.

[notyoueither]

No, I do not. How do most MP games get along? By getting along.

In some cases you have people quitting and games bogging or becoming unbalanced due to that. In this case there are multiple players for every team. I have respect for many that I know on other teams (at least 1 person per team is 'known' to me, including ND sortta). I doubt we will be left high and dry.

In the unlikely event that we do get left with an abandoned position, then I could see a reason to have a meeting of team leaders and seconds to appoint someone to take over. I am hopeful that that would be a solution and that at least one member of the leaving team would be kind enough to supply the password.

[notyoueither]

I fear I've been too negative. Yes, a council of some sort would be very useful. We had that, sort of, a while back. There was a meeting of the team leaders in a chat during which many things were worked out and agreed to.

Although RPS was never necessary (for real) that came from that meeting. As did the Dec 1 start date, or something else important I may have forgotten.

At any rate, yes. A council to speed the game is good. I have reservations about 'police' of some sort though.

[Dis]

a council may be too big. If anything it should consist of the leaders of each team. I don't agree with punishments. just keep the game moving.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Dissident
a council may be too big. If anything it should consist of the leaders of each team. I don't agree with punishments. just keep the game moving.

I would also tend to create a body of team leaders (which would perhaps appoint their deputies, to ensure there is always someone available on behalf of the team). Such a body should hopefully be able to act swiftly enough and had sufficient authority. Besides, there are 7 teams, thus 7 members of the High Council. Good for votes, should it come to them.

[lmtoops]

One representive per team. The sole purpose is to
1. Initially, write instructions on how to correctly perform PBEM
2. Handle extreme cases....like the supreme court

Thats it.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I don't like it much, personally. Why do we need to add another layer of official crap to go through?

The only thing this could be good for would be disputes, but what is there to really dispute over? And, if there is something, declare war and eliminate the offenders from the game.

[Arnelos]

To those worried about excessive bureaucracy,

I honestly see the main use for a council as the body which schedules turnchats. All teams are represented and all teams need to agree on the timing for turnchats. The council could also resolve any stupid issues that come up with the save file (such as the Double Production and Regent mess that came up with the first turn). Beyond that, they need no official duties.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arnelos
To those worried about excessive bureaucracy,

I honestly see the main use for a council as the body which schedules turnchats. All teams are represented and all teams need to agree on the timing for turnchats. The council could also resolve any stupid issues that come up with the save file (such as the Double Production and Regent mess that came up with the first turn). Beyond that, they need no official duties.

Oh great, now my team doesn't even get to determine its own turnchats? Now we will have to have our turnchats whenever Roleplay wants as they have more members..........

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Oh great, now my team doesn't even get to determine its own turnchats? Now we will have to have our turnchats whenever Roleplay wants as they have more members..........

What? I believe Arnelos means inter-team chats, which would happen during any agreed upon mass-turn events, like that proposed for this weekend. Not team chats. And the idea is for ONE representative from each team in the council, each with ONE vote - that's seven votes - complete equality. And that's only if the Council has to vote on something. Perhaps they would be responsible for creating polls for everyone to voice opinions on, to make decisions.

Why is everyone being so negative? This is not being mandated from the Roleplay team, it is a proposal for discussion. If you aren't happy with the current suggestions, make some of your own. I would be surprised if anyone doesn't think the game would benefit from having some form of inter-team body.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Schedule chats? My understanding was that there would be MAYBE one kickoff chat, then just normal playing.

Besides shouldn't the actual LEADERS be the ones to get together and decide chat times (if any) since they are the ones going to be PLAYING?

Don't add any more stuff than is absolutely neccessary.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Schedule chats? My understanding was that there would be MAYBE one kickoff chat, then just normal playing.

Besides shouldn't the actual LEADERS be the ones to get together and decide chat times (if any) since they are the ones going to be PLAYING?

Don't add any more stuff than is absolutely neccessary.

Even if there is only one mass-turn chat, we need a scheduled time. Sunday was chaos because there was never an agreed upon start time. I would be surprised though, if there is never another one after this weekend.

If people are fine with the team leaders being the voices, great. But I believe it needs to be clear that those seven people have a responsibility to make game decisions (however few there may be). Right now, mob rule is making them, which favours the teams with the most vocal, veteran members. I certainly don't agree with that.

[FrustratedPoet]

I admit that the game has got off to a poor start. I think that the team leaders should meet asap (they don't all have to be in the same chatroom at the same time, but as long as they are all consulted soon then it's OK) to discuss amongst themselves how we can avoid this mess-up happening again.

I think the last thing we need is another layer of beauocracy, but when something goes badly wrong (such as the AP/Regent mix-up) the team leaders should meet to sort it out.

In summary, I can't see the need for any kind of permenant Council with powers to ban people from the game etc. etc.... although I would hope that the captains would take it upon themselves (isn't this part of their job description?) to sort out problems like we had this weekend quickly and rationally.

[lmtoops]

I have no problem with inter-team council. Let's just limit their power.

Remember, this thread was started with some talking about assessing penalties (such as skipping a turn). So I think many are reacting to that statement. That is what is making people upset.

[ThePlagueRat]

Solving out of game inter-team disputes?
- Well, I hope that's not neccessary.

However, for in-game inter-team disputes...
We can send diplõmatas, or throw tomatas ?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Solving out of game inter-team disputes?
- Well, I hope that's not neccessary.

I hope so too.

But, just to play devil's advocate...

What would we do under each of these hypothetical situations?

A) All teams generally meet the 24hr turn around, except for Team X, who chronically takes 48 hrs.

B) A diplomat of Team X posts the contents of a between teams diplomatic PM or email in the general forum instead of his own, by accident or otherwise.

[OliverFA]

Last Sunday it was just plain crazy. I'm not acusing anyone of what happened, but the fact is that it happened. Joke or not, for a moment a team was out of the game. This is important enough!

Some of you ask which kind of affairs would this council solve. Of course it would not solve in-game affairs, like "that team promised us to do that and it hasn't". They would be all meta-game affairs. There are a lot of problems that can appear and no one has thought of. No one wants it to be an inquisition. The purpose of this council is to help things, not to make them even more difficult. That's preferible than the present situation in which the one who yells louder is the one who wins.

Right now, no one has authority to do anything, which means that the people with less complexes are the ones which in fact decide for all. They just do what they want, and since no one has the right to question anyone everything remains the same.

Also, In a council formed by 1 member of each team, I cannot see how could the RP-Team impose anything...

[Donegeal]

I would like to state again that we have a predesignated chat time that doesn't change. If the leaders all know in advance when the chat is going to be, they can know sooner if they can make it. If they can't make, then I am sure at least one person from each team can make it.

In addition, if we have a set time for a turnchat, then people can make arrangements to make it. There would be no more of this "I can never find where or when the chat is". Remove the variable and it becomes much simpler.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by dejon


I hope so too.

But, just to play devil's advocate...

What would we do under each of these hypothetical situations?

A) All teams generally meet the 24hr turn around, except for Team X, who chronically takes 48 hrs.

B) A diplomat of Team X posts the contents of a between teams diplomatic PM or email in the general forum instead of his own, by accident or otherwise.

A) And what is the Council going to do about it? I have a feeling that we would be policing that rather closely ourselves without any formal garbage getting in the way. Perhaps that team just needs a new leader, and the members of that team would be tired of the harrassment we would all give them?

B) Why should this be handled out of game? Team X has violated the trust of whatever team, and everyone knows it, isn't that punishment enough? Who is going to deal with them again? Ever.

Might even see a huge alliance to remove either of these teams...that would solve the problems...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by donegeal
I would like to state again that we have a predesignated chat time that doesn't change.

When did this happen? When is the chat time?