Discussion: GLs Committee

[Shiber]

I propose that in order to stop halting the game for excessive periods of time in the future, we form a senate committee that will be placed in charge of deciding how to use our nation's Great Leaders.
Now that we're doing exceptionally good, and the benefits of GLs aren't such a big deal anymore, we should stop halting the game over such incrucial matters as determining the use for a GL and hand over the choice to a small senate committee, which will be made out of 5 elected senators.
What do you think?

[Arnelos]

This has some merit...

Not sure how people will take the idea of the full Senate giving up authority on this, though...

[Donegeal]

I agree with Arne....

Maybe I'm selfish, but I would only agree to something like this if I was on the commitee...

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by donegeal
I agree with Arne....

Maybe I'm selfish, but I would only agree to something like this if I was on the commitee...

"If you live in a country run by committee, be on the committee."
-Graham Summer

[Aidun]

Well, not a bad idea, but I would only vote for it if members of the parties are represented proprtionally in the committee, otherwise it's not very democratic. This does not count for the non-party-members, but their whole groop should also have an amount of seats that represents their amount in the senate. Summarized: proportionality in the committee

Aidun

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Aidun
Well, not a bad idea, but I would only vote for it if members of the parties are represented proprtionally in the committee, otherwise it's not very democratic. This does not count for the non-party-members, but their whole groop should also have an amount of seats that represents their amount in the senate. Summarized: proportionality in the committee

Aidun

That scares me. As an independent, I am against instutionalizing parties like this.

I would support a senate elected 7 person commitee and a 7 day deadline (10 turn maximum or something) for the process. I am against halting the game for GLs anymore as they are not that important for our supremacy these days. We have only 4 more great wonders to go and I think that we should be able to build all of them first, if we plan it right.

[Arnelos]

I agree with MSS there. Most of the population are still Independents. The party system shouldn't be part of the official workings of government.

[Panzer32]

No Committee By the way the results are going in the poll, we will probably keep the GL for a while, nulifying the need for such a committee.

[Shiber]

It seems as though half the people don't want to give up their voting rights, and the other half don't want to stop the game every time we get a GL.
How about this: we create a committe that would decide on two uses for the next GL that may arise before any turnchat/turnthread takes place, and then posts these two options in the orders thread (as if they were cabinet members giving orders). Should we get a GL during the turnchat/turnthread, the president will halt the game and immediately post a 72 hours poll allowing a choice between the two options that the committee presented.

[Meshelic]

IMHO, an amendment to our current NewCon is in order....there is little reason anymore to delay the game at all due to a GL. Na'armer is probably going to be stored away for later use anyways, but regardless of whether we use him or not right now, we will surely acquire more GL's in the future.

The reasoning behind stopping the game due to a GL is no longer as valid now as it was in the past, especially with the advent of Hoover and Iron Works....but that's my personal opinion.

[Aro]

I agree, Meshelic. There's no more reason to halt the game, we're in a new Industrial Golden Age. At this point, we can build anything we want (including mostly wonders) in short time.

A suggestion:

What about a "GL queue"? This committee could organize some possible queues for any GL. So, if we got one, just consult the queue to see what build or rush first. That queue needs to be updated constantly, and this will be the role of the committee.
Of course the queue (or queues) must be submitted to the Senate by polls, etc.
(I need my legal adviser to extract some sense from this ... )

My two cents.

[DAVOUT]

If really we dont need GL anymore, the simplest way to solve the problem is to store the last one : we will never get another one.

[Aro]

GLs aren't so bad (in fact, it's very funny when we get one)... If we don't have to stop the game because of them.
You always can built an Army, if nothing else important is avaliable. The cost of an army in shields is high...

IMHO, the GL queue could make it easy.

Edit: typos

[DAVOUT]

Would you like a compromise ?

The constitution says :

8 The Senate has the power to decide how Great Leaders are used

We could add :

until all Great Wonders have been build.

[Aro]

Sounds fair.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Aro
What about a "GL queue"? This committee could organize some possible queues for any GL. So, if we got one, just consult the queue to see what build or rush first. That queue needs to be updated constantly, and this will be the role of the committee.
Of course the queue (or queues) must be submitted to the Senate by polls, etc.
(I need my legal adviser to extract some sense from this ... )

Good idea!
I propose that we act as follows:

1. Start a discussion thread and discuss what are the options for using a GL.
2. Come up with a list.
3. Start a multi-choice poll, where every citizen can vote for the options that he likes the most.
4. Create a queue, where the first option will be to build the item that received the most votes, the second to build the item with the second most votes and so on...
5. From that point, we can have periodical discussions and multi-choice polls to decide a new queue every, say, two weeks.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Shiber


4. Create a queue, where the first option will be to build the item that received the most votes, the second to build the item with the second most votes and so on...
5. From that point, we can have periodical discussions and multi-choice polls to decide a new queue every, say, two weeks.

A queue does not reflect a choice, but only the order in which the options will be build.

[Shiber]

We've said it before, it doesn't matter much what we use the GL for, since we can build everything ourselves, and since we're not in any dire need for assistance from any great leaders.
The committee and the queue ideas may not be the perfect solution, but at least they could get this issue off of our heads.

[Torkkeli]

I think that if there is nothing significant to do with the leader, there is no reason to stop the turn chat.

By this I mean
1) no Great Wonder to build (the case now)
2) no Palace to jump (the case now)
3) no new armies needed (I think the case now?)

Or maybe if the DM could come up a plan of what to do with a possible leader before the turn chat.
He/She would ofcourse consult the senators before making the decision.

just my 0.02€

[Aro]

Originally posted by Torkkeli

...........
Or maybe if the DM could come up a plan of what to do with a possible leader before the turn chat.
He/She would ofcourse consult the senators before making the decision.

just my 0.02€

In a certain way, this plan is the queue, and can be implemented by a committee or by the Senate. However, the queue (or plan) can be generic, like you said. An example (lets say, after exhaustive discussions and dozens of threads/polls )

1- Build an Army (no wonders available)
2-Rush a cultural building (war weariness needs, no wonders yet)
3- World Wonder (after "x" turns, we got a tech or something that makes a wonder available)
4- Wow! Another wonder in hand... Rush it!
5- Army again…

....And so on.

We are in such stage of the game, we have a large capacity to "plan ahead" (not "play ahead", please! ).

Just more two "centavos"

[Torkkeli]

Originally posted by Aro

In a certain way, this plan is the queue, and can be implemented by a committee or by the Senate. However, the queue (or plan) can be generic, like you said. An example (lets say, after exhaustive discussions and dozens of threads/polls )

Yep. This could lead to a situation where there are too many polls/threads to be completed before turn chat.
Well it's only so because this is a demo game after all.

Maybe here would be a point to make it a little less demo game (=bureaucratic (sp?)) and give the DM (or other minister) the autohority do what ever he/she wants with the GL.
It would be benefical to the DM's career to consult the senators. After all we have the power to overthrow the DM, don't we?

and another 0.02€

[Aro]

Originally posted by Torkkeli

... After all we have the power to overthrow the DM, don't we?

and another 0.02€

Yes, you have the power.

IIRC, the Senate must impeach the DM first...

Another round of threads, discussions, polls and ... the Court!

[roadcage]

Believe it or not, I think we really do need a standing GL committee. However the purpose of that committee is to be ready to post a shortlist poll of a few options for the senate. It would be advantageous for that poll to be of the multiple all you could support format.

The objective here is to have structure in place so that there is reasonable expectation that the senate can act in a timely manner.

The original proposal called for the committee to actually select the course. This was clearly doomed to failure because everyone wants to be involved in the final decision.

My proposal gets around this. Lets say we make sure that there is reasonable diversity on the committee and the committee is bound to produce a list of the (insert #) most favored options or the actual options if less than (insert #) are offered in the discussion.

I believe that this could work.

What I am uncertain about is how to establish the Committee membership, term of service etc. And naturally, I hereby volunteer to be the warmonger representative.


Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[joncnunn]

Right now, I think the best use of the Great Leaders is to rush the Small Wonders, Wall Street, CIA, and when we've built 5 Hospitals, Battlefield Medicine.

The next Great Wonder requires a modern era tech.

[Shiber]

Roadcage, I have made a similar suggestion before:

Originally posted by Shiber
How about this: we create a committe that would decide on two uses for the next GL that may arise before any turnchat/turnthread takes place, and then posts these two options in the orders thread (as if they were cabinet members giving orders). Should we get a GL during the turnchat/turnthread, the president will halt the game and immediately post a 72 hours poll allowing a choice between the two options that the committee presented.

Anyway, I'm just glad we agree on something.

Originally posted by roadcage
What I am uncertain about is how to establish the Committee membership, term of service etc.

IMHO, we should begin a separate discussion thread and resolve these issues, should enough people voice their interest in the forming of such a committee.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Aro

A suggestion:

What about a "GL queue"? This committee could organize some possible queues for any GL. So, if we got one, just consult the queue to see what build or rush first. That queue needs to be updated constantly, and this will be the role of the committee.
Of course the queue (or queues) must be submitted to the Senate by polls, etc.
(I need my legal adviser to extract some sense from this ... )

My two cents.

I really like this idea.

Another idea is that the senat defers the decision to the commitee, but the comittee is responsible for keeping the discussion going and current.

[Panag]

hi ,

one thing is for sure , we need to have plans in advance , ......

the senate should and could vote in advance , with at least two GL's , ....

have a nice GL day