Suggestions for rules, etc.

I was thinking it would be good to kick some ideas around and hammer out some rough draft stuff rather than just trying to write up a Constitution from scratch. Once something would seem to fly then it could be voted on as to if it should or should not be in the Constitution. If passed it would be, if not its back to the board room.

Some things I think we need:
1) All Supremacy 1914 rules must be followed, no exceptions.
2) Rules of Conduct. Some things may not be against the rules but are not acceptable. Conduct should at all times be respectful of others and polite and ladies should always be treated like ladies - just good ole Southern common sense.
3) Enemies in a game are not enemies forever there should be no grudges carried over to other matches. Now if a certain alliance does not like a certain other alliance that is a different matter but it still must not get out of hand. Keep the rivalry friendly and keep the contacts respectful.
4) Do not spam other people's forums - it may seem like a fun thing to do some time but it is not fun for them so just do not do it.
5) If you announce that your team is looking for a game then your team must show up for that game. It is just not good to keep games waiting for long periods of time before they start and it only makes it harder to get opponents for future games.
6) We should have a simple ranking system based on the accomplishments of the teams in the games set up here. Perhaps we can even run things in somewhat of a tournament structure at least for certain games. With a ranking system teams could be set against one another based on performance and as a team improved its stats it would have more challenging opponents. This would take some time to develop sufficient statistics to structure but it would seem to me that eventually it would be possible and produce good results.
===
Well that is enough to chew on for starters, I do not want anyone to choke right away. (I may have to choke someone later, but that you will find out in time - just in time.)

I think that about sums up the entity for the rules myself. This isn't a single clan so we really don't need to strict of a set up.

But, what I want to really add to is the Tournament Ranking system. How I would have it set up is something like 60-70% of your rank comes from your win loss ratio and the rest from experience. So someone with a 30-3 win lose ratio would be ranked similarly to someone 80-30. I don't know the exact math system to use or how to calculate it but that seems the most reasonable system to me. (Hey! Maybe someone is a coder and could write a program to calculate it >> I am sure that might be an acceptable project for any computer programmers in college.. Maybe..) Another thing is a secondary team roster.

I know in QMR that we have multiple teams for differently skilled players. Our Marines are our main team that fights against other alliances while the other teams are used to train new members. So if other teams have such set ups we could run them against each other with no affect on the main teams ranking.

Also, I think that we should just have a current roster of players on each team with there in game ranking that way teams can get a feel for who they are challenging. I think that would really help in the first stages of this project.

Anyway, those are my two cents, I'll add more as it comes to me.

There are quite a few rules here. And I agree with most of them.
The Tournament ranking, as Zama says, will need to be reconsidered for the confederacy...

Also, we need to think of the leading alliances -
(1) How many there should be
(2) How long they would keep their seat
(3) The method of electing
(4) What privileges they are to get...
(5) And ofcource - what their post is to be called.

Here are my suggestions for this -
(1) Up to 1/3 of the total alliances in the confederacy may be voted to take the place of head of the system.
(2) Two months seem sufficient
(3) Voting, as discussed earlier
(4) I leave this blank. We need to get the concerns of other alliances before suggesting anything like this.
(5) I'm not very good at coming up with names.


May I hear audit for these suggestions?

For number five.. How about Chancellor! (OF THE GALACTIC REPUBLIC!!)(Im a nerd..)

I was thinking something along the line of chairman or secretary or some other neutral sounding title. Chancellor seems to carry certain images into the mind of the reader and perhaps is not neutral enough. Just a thought.

Haha I agree. I like Secretary personally..

Secretary is good enough for me.

what are the repercussions of not showing up for a game? rules are not one of my areas of interest unless it has to do with battle. i'm a warrior and not a politician. also is there a limit to spamming these alliance forums? or is there a limit to postings?

Nothing to worry about.
We will be dividing the group system soon enough. So that there will users to handle rules and users to handle battles.
Ofcource everyone may take part in discussion - it is a free option to anyone, that is a key point of the legion.

But remember, if someone messes up or makes a bad impression - it'll effect his entire team.

About the spam, I'm not sure. We dont have any forum rules yet...

As for your question about missing games, I propose the following:
1) Absence with leave should not invoke any penalty. The leave would have to be granted by the leader of the team and it would have to be arranged in advance.
2) Absence without leave (AWOL) should be penalized. The penalty is something we would have to decide upon and it would have to be clearly spelled out in the rules so everyone knows about it.
3) Emergencies do come up, sometimes an isp can go down or power can be off or there can be an emergency that arises which does not allow someone to make an arrangement for a leave. Upon returning the one to which this emergency has happened will find they are marked AWOL but it will be up to them to make a case for an excused emergency leave to cover the situation.

I do not know of a more fair way to handle this.

-this is a league of alliances and the league should not be policing the alliances.
-each alliance get 1 vote
-we need a president who keeps things orderly
1. president does not vote except to breaks ties
2. should the work load get too much then the president can appoint judges to assist
3. judges should be approved by a majority vote
-absenteeism is each alliances responsibility to take care of and not the leagues.
1. if a person or team does not show within a certain time frame then they forfeit the match.
2. if a player goes inactive during the game then they can choose to resign or continue the game without them.
-anyone may post any issues on the forum to the league any matter whether they are grievances or whatever.
-voting requires that at least one alliance be in agreement to back up what is to be voted on before voting can take place within the league.

HERE ARE MY SUGGESTIONS

BASIC RULES -
> Alliance matches should go as they go in general.
> Game ends on day 22, unless declared a tie.

ANTI-CHEAT
> A thread is to be created, in the "League" Forum, by the creator of the round.
> Then the leader of the second team also posts in that thread, to show that he is willing to play the game.
> The thread belongs to them until day 22.
> This is when either/both the topic creator or the leader of the other team change their posts.
> In the newly changed post, they are to include the number of territories held by both teams (yes, each of the first two post must contain the number of territories held by both teams)
> It is the leaders' duties to check that there is no faults in the other team's post.
> Should there be, the offended leader is to complain to the current Leading Alliance(s), and make a public announcement.

TIE RULES
> A game is to be called a tie if the number of territories held by either team is within +/- 10% of the other.
e.g. Team 1 has 20 territories, team 2 has 18 territories, so it is a draw.
> Any other percentage above 10, means that the team with the most territory wins.

DAY LIMIT
> A declaration on game victories should be made on the start of day 22 [after the end of day 21]
> Should the game be a tie, the game will continue for 5 more days. [THIS IS A REPEATING PROCESS]
> Should the tie still stay til day 50 [not very probable], the game will dropped as stalemate... Neither team wins.
================================================

What is it that is so important in my suggestion, that is not in yours, you ask?
Its quite simple -
I did not include any personnel in the rules.
Players may turn biased. As when one man comes to power, he forgets his virtues. And humans always have a tendency to turn to the person they like the most.
(e.g. Specter in Alliance Union - their leader is the beloved of UND's Representative, and so specter is made a supreme power in the union, without any voting what so ever)

The partiality will lead to unfair decisions in games. Which would lead to arguments, and will result in the break up, as was seen in The Union.
=======================================

Now you may ask, so how is it going to run? By itself?!
YES! You are absolutely CORRECT! You are genius!

========================================

SOMEONE KINDLY REVIEW MY SUGGESTION, AND PLEASE DONT HESITATE TO POINT OUT ANY BAD POINTS.

Is it always so complicated to make a constitution? can we just buy one???
Until now I see only 3 people posting here and there so u need attractive things to get members, so I advise setting a game ASAP and u can continue the discussions there

I think games should go on until the other team has been completely defeated. Might take a bit longer, but it allows for alliances to make comebacks and truly play to there strengths be it if they are slower, more defensive players or more aggressive. It took us little more then thirty days to win our last alliance game. So why can't we just play it like a regular game? Fight till you win or till you lose?

I like the idea of a subjective victory condition based solely on the number of provinces held. I too was concerned about a possibility not only of actual bias but also of perceived bias with a judge to rule on the outcome.

As to the question about why make a set ending date for the game rather then letting it finish to a total victory, it moves things along and makes the game rounds all the same length hence (hopefully) more equal in opportunity given equality of skill. I hope any of that jibberish makes some sense.

If only we could just use a pre-made and totally tailored to fit constitution. Alas such a document does not exist so we need to write one up. In order to write one up we need to gather our collective ideas, so we gab about it here. Hopefully we are starting to gel in what we are putting together.

I suppose that works well when you put it like that Wulf.