| Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:06 am |
I think some basic ground rules will have to be laid out before anyone will agree to particapate.
| Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 12:38 pm |
Better recalculate those stats Grey, I just killed the chairman of the UN security council *evil grin* - well he declared on me, so I'm not taking any flak for being evil on this one
| Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 11:45 pm |
From the messages you found in that country SKP, it would appear that open discussion with the 12 Monkeys isn't valued or desired by many of the current Council's members. I guess I was wasting my time.
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 01:32 am |
Interesting? Crud. I wonder what that means.
| Monday, October 06, 2003 - 04:14 am |
Yellow chunky feces...
| Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 05:32 pm |
Hmmm, This has to be bad, and not taken very serious. I mean c'mon, it ended in "Yellow chunky faces"...?
| Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 02:00 am |
HA interesting indeed
| Friday, October 24, 2003 - 02:15 pm |
A few more ideas:
1) Perhaps another way to do this would be to offer membership to the top 30 GDP-earning presidents regardless of their federation. We might even go into the top 40 or 50 as some presidents probably won't participate. The top 30 would be:
Jinson Xu, Matthew C, Matt P, elle wiltan, Cyriac Edappully, ieuan james, Kevin Watkins, Ibrahim Yikilmaz, Matty Bizzo, Keith Fairbanks, M P, Victor E Restrepo, Andrzej Gandecki, A F, Ishmael _, Norwegian Elk, Eskon .., Rob Goddard, John Staker, Marion Angell, Phaedrus .,David Jennings, Theresa Bonner, Geoffrey Hinkle, David Butler, James Folsom, Spogy Williams, John Hickman, James W, and iki- ryo.
2) It might be kinda cool to have each member country renamed for the fed and/or president it represents. For example, my Council country would be "Monkeys - Matty"...or something of the like. Whatever.
3) I'm not so convinced anymore that we really need a chairman, but of course that's something we'd all decide.
4) Scorpion, why don't you or someone else if you don't want to just go ahead and get the ball rolling. Make the fed and we can either actively recruit members or let them come to us once we've decided what the rules for seat makeup are going to be.
| Friday, October 24, 2003 - 03:17 pm |
I agree, there isnt a necessity for an 'acting' chairperson, although obviously one would need to be appointed in order to appease the game mechanics. Chairmanship would be an honorific at best, and if anyone cared, could even be rotating or shift due to activity changes of the players involved etc.
If it is to be a real (that is, "in-game" fed, as opposed to a MSN group or other forum operating outide of SC) then only 25 members at most can be invited (of course! just a reminder). I think representative or token membership from federations will be sufficient, with messages being relayed to participating feds by the representatives (ambassadors! ) they have chosen.
Single-president federations would only be asked to send a rep if the president involved was not already a member of one of the main federations and was strong enough to constitute a Power in his or her own right.
Due to the often incestuous nature of fed relationships, this probably wouldnt be necessary often, although I can think of a few examples.
The main purposes of this federation, in my humble opinion, can be summarized as follows:
1) Sharing information everyone should know, as agreed by most :P. A notable example of something like this would be The Kenneth Affair.
Other examples of this, defined by myself ;), would include:
a) economic information in-game (sharing PPW data, market performance, management ideas)
b)A formal process of picking the most experienced players minds for suggestions that would make them happy, and voting on them, so that W3c might have well-formatted, well-analysed suggestions proposed to them, rather than sorting through loads of crud on the BBs or their email. perhaps they could even be mailed directly from TNN, with the notation that they were voted to be good suggestions by many serious players of the game. They could(should!) even be priority-coded.
2) Bug tracking, and explanation of such bugs for new players. Many things do not work as advertised, and I agree with Ian that the more active and strong players there are, the more fun it is for everyone involved. Attracting and retaining players happens more often when they dont get frustrated by the game; this happens less when people know more about the game.
3) Policing advanced bug-abuse. This is already done to an extent, but formalizing it would be nice. The main problem here is policing the police...
4)Serving as a moderated forum for negotiation, when appropriate and desired, and for specific situational information sharing (as opposed to the general info listed above). some of this might go a long way towards keeping the bulletin board a much hapier place. Territorial or economic desires /deals could be communicated, and fed policies discussed. That way, if someone registers/conquers a country near a player, only to be declared upon, they wont have a reason for surpise (as an example).
Regions, continents, etc can be divvied up and territorial claims made. The council wouldnt enforce them...but they can be claimed ;)
I think if there are any very large CEOs who do not hvae countries, they should be considered for membership as well. If there are many, perhaps an unofficial conglomerate (formally representede din-game by a common market, perhaps) could be formed , which coudl send a single representative
I think the best place to organize this would not necessarily be in-game, but rather on TNN - assuming people would bother to check in. The forum there already has voting procedures hard-coded into the site, and access limitations. A forum section could be created acessible only to group members (other could be alloewed to read it, or not, as desired). Then Council members would be able to vote and/or post on all subjects without bothering to create an ADDITIONAL community. Another advantage would be a record of what was said and done (maybe the council chair would be responsible for keeping this recorded )
It could easily be an in-game federation and a TNN group. The in-game messages might remind people to check the TNN BB.
The only 'ground rules' which I think are valid ot enforce involve respecting the game rules (not cheating , intentionally abusing known bugs, or otherwise engaging in such cheesy behavior), helping to enforce the game rules, respecting fellow players (at least an attempt at no out-of-character profanity or real nastiness..although in/game trash-talking can be good natured and fun ), and communicating any bugs/flaws/potential abuses found. This will require some degree of trust, but there shouldnt be any reason to worry, as long as the council does what it is suposed to.
Anything else could be agreed upon in-council; setting additional rules prior to its creation presupposes that everyone who wants to play the game legally wants to play it the same way. This presumption, of course, is false.
I dont know id this is a particualrly good idea, but its worth an attempt, at least. I think it woudlnt take very long to search out its merit
In light of this post, Ive thought of a few suggestions, too. Anything which was good for a particular presidents/playes short-term interest, but bad for the world as a whole, might engender interesting conflicts. Examples would be the creation of pollution from rapid industrial buildup, with safer methods