Alliance Council Members Rights

An issue that I think we all need to address is council members rights within the alliance and what exactly should we appropriate as the Council's authority.

Please post your submissions to what you think they should be so that we can create more clarity within the alliance as well!

As an example, we can designate a council member over each region to collect opinions of their perspective regions so that the council member can be a voice for all of them on alliance matters

Thanks,
timalmighty

I think that maybe before we decide to DOW someone or start something without a DOW, we as council members should take a vote on it. Something like majority rules or something like that. The catch would be that when you vote you would have to defend your position and not just vote. I do think that having us "put in charge" of a region would also be another good idea, provided everyone in the alliance knows who is in charge of what region. I also know that it would be very difficult but maybe something like a weekly or bi-weekly or even monthly meeting of council to discuss things couldn't hurt but I don't realistically expect that to happen due to time differences and things like that.

As a council member they sould be allowed tovoice opinions on largescale matters thay affect the alliance

We discuss and vote on major issues that arise. We also have been known to direct emergency operations (defense and attacks) that occur against us when leadership and other members of the council are all off line.

It's also our responsibility to maintain cool heads when things escalate. I like to think of us as CA's auxiliary brains.

navy seals wrote:As a council member they sould be allowed tovoice opinions on largescale matters thay affect the alliance

Thats very vague!
However I do agree with your point but you need to be more specific.

If they are allowed to voice there opinions then what absolute authority should there opinions decide. Should it be by vote on a resolution and this said resolution be binding within the alliance.....??????

Carsear wrote:We discuss and vote on major issues that arise. We also have been known to direct emergency operations (defense and attacks) that occur against us when leadership and other members of the council are all off line.

It's also our responsibility to maintain cool heads when things escalate. I like to think of us as CA's auxiliary brains.

Again I agree with you but a final authority needs to be within the councils authority.
I have no problem respecting the councils authority, I just want to know where the final line should be.
Feel free to discuss this within the council members and with them so that we can come to a consensus where you guys have a legitamate stopping point if things go awry within!

What do you mean about a "final line"?

From what I gather, before we act on anything large-scale-ish, we talk about it, and gather a consensus-ish thing. We modify the plan, and accommodate most of the members' thoughts. Which I like. Of course, no one would come up with perfect plans.

With regards to voting, I really, really hope it doesn't come to that. A vote means there are irreconcilable differences with how the individual members of the council want to run the alliance. In the past, at least the past I was here for, we have always been able to think similarly, and irreconcilable differences means that's no longer the case.

However, like divorce, sometimes irreconcilable differences do happen. Which makes the guy who insisted on drawing up a pre-nup look smart. How about 2/3, instead of majority?

I just want to outline what would a council final line should be for the council.
What do they feel a final line or how much weight their voice should mean in these chambers.

I'm reaching and looking for ideas!

Carsear wrote:We discuss and vote on major issues that arise. We also have been known to direct emergency operations (defense and attacks) that occur against us when leadership and other members of the council are all off line.

It's also our responsibility to maintain cool heads when things escalate. I like to think of us as CA's auxiliary brains.

LOL Thanks Carsear..


My vision of the council is that we do discuss problems within and without of the alliance. Getting the regions set up would be a good idea for moving forward.

Could we all agree that we have a nominating resolution council member that should have a title to bring up a vote within the council.

I'm all ears and looking for a chain of command within the council and have an appointed member to address the concerns , issues or directives of the council! )

yes... I second what ever Tim thinks..

I already said what I think about having to vote. Thinking that we have to vote shows that there is a disjuncture between how people think within the council, that goes beyond builder/warrior disagreements, in which I think we all understand both arguments.

I think anyone in the council should be able to bring up a vote though. Everyone knows how to make a poll, right? Well all you got to do is make a poll in the council chambers, and you can bring stuff to a vote.

Now, about having council vote on stuff we've previously talked about, but cannot find a resolution to, that's the issue. I think we can volunteer CA for that.

My whole point is to envigorate and empower the council to where they voice the final resolve over issues withhin the alliance.
If the leaders would outline specifics

1) the council has the riight.......
2) the council can..........
3) the council will outline.........
4) the council reccomends.........


These are the ideas I'm looking for aND i WILL ADD THEM TO THE INTERNAL ALLIANCE PAGE!

I'm not sure if we want to be that transparent with the members. How about we make a pinned and locked thread in the council chambers?

The only things I can answer off the top of my head is:
1) I think the council has a right to collectively decide the action of the alliance
and
4) The council recommends whatever is agreed to in each individual thread. Maybe CA (or me, but hopefully CA) can kinda compile what we've decided at the end, then close and lock the thread.

Although...

If something requires urgent attention, and I mean urgent, like organized pillages from a group, someone drops a DoW, multi-attacks on us, or anything of the emergency nature, I think the council should trust the sitting officers enough to allow them to handle it once they know about the problem, then present it here.

Nowhale you have proven yourself as a true leader.

I'll work with my assistant to come up with some parameters that I'll run by both of you.
I'm going to continue to look for feedback but this is exactly the dialog I was looking for! )
TY very much!

The reason that I had in mind when I brought up voting would be to go to war with a certain alliance or another. What I had envisioned was that there would be a topic brought up in council chambers like "should we go to war with UPC?" (for example) and we would discuss it for a few days about who wants to or doesnt and why. Then after a day or two, you pretty much can't change someone's mind with discussion so we would have a vote as to whether or not we go to war with them. I suggested a majority vote because I thought it was simpler but I can agree with a 2/3 majority vote.

my opinion is the council should be experienced players who can lend insight into the decisions made by leadership, but ultimately the final choice, after weighing the opinions of coucil should be in leaderships hands...

Oh, and BTW Tim, relax a little with the "replacing in the council"...

This is the first chacne i have had to get online in about 18 hours and i think there was three different threatening messages and removing people from the council.

In the future give it at least 24 hours for people to voice their opinions...

That's a good point too. A council, by nature will act a lot slower than just a leader and the officers working together, especially if the officers are online a lot. 24 hours seem like a good figure.

Redneck makes a good point too with the voting being a formality of sorts, before we go into war. Should we put a minimum number of votes on it too, like, say, 75% of the number of people who can vote?

I am SO loving this thread.

I know you guys have lots of generals. Maybe a general or the diplomat can open the polls as to when and who to fight?

I also already see nowhale and Ceaser as being the "final word" guys.

I like the whole 75% of voters thing, but I also like a time frame idea in the case of war. If it's a "should we kick UPC's teeth in?" poll, give it three days OR 75% of the voters, whichever comes first.

I wouldn't mind seeing a place for flaming personal attacks. You know... a place where someone can ream another council member without filling the board with new topics, or muddying up ongoing topics- just post it in the "flame" area, and let nature take it's course. I don't want to censure anyone, and sometimes flaming posts get points across in a way that politicaly correct speach just doesn't accomplish.

As a council member, I'd like to be able to open a topic about anything non-confrontational at any time. I need to know that the council chambers are for messages directed to an elite group, so questions like "How do I make a trade treaty?" need to go on the main board for everyone to see, but things like "One-shot from UPC just demolished a 3000K point player's town" should go here.

Well, that's my two cents... but I'm sure I owe you guys a quarter by now.

Ok, ya all know i don't post a lot, but..
I agree a lil bit with everyone lol
-> as TI said - i feel the final word should go to leaders. council is here to discuss, voice their opinions. if there is a clear problem in making one - we can end up voting, which in the end SHOULD show which way the alliance wanna go. time frame/% will generally depend on the circumstances - sometimes time is precious. other day its important to take time and weight all options...
but as nowhale mentioned, often we're all on same page, and voting doesn't seem to be necessary.

-> council meetings sound good - i think we tried that at some point.. maybe even more than once lol

-> re. flaming - personally, i've seen enough. if there is a problem - it should be discussed. if there is an issue - it should be brought up. tho i understand that internet communication has its own "charms" and at times its hard to explain things the way they should have been explained, i hope we are mature enough to avoid insults and trash talks. i don't think its about being "politically" correct either - we're supposed to be friends, having same goals etc., creating those kinda situations is all but constructive, and will interfere with any future discussions/decision making things.

->and yes, the chambers should give council/leaders the opportunity to communicate behind closed doors, no matter the subject. tho i want to point out that the rest of the alliance should not be kept totally in the dark. as a friend of mine, dodg, once pointed out - they should feel they are part of the decision making as well.

true_illusion wrote:Oh, and BTW Tim, relax a little with the "replacing in the council"...

This is the first chacne i have had to get online in about 18 hours and i think there was three different threatening messages and removing people from the council.

In the future give it at least 24 hours for people to voice their opinions...

I was bluffing the whole time
I know I dont have the authority to make those decisions

I just worded it that way to get a rise and get some involvement.
Plus or minus a few cocktails....lol
I'm sorry if it sounded too abrasive. I didnt mean to offend anyone!

Anyways , a suggestion I would like to make is to create a locked thread or something of the sorts that would lend privacy and autonomy to the Council that only them and the Leaders only could access. Also we need to create a position for a Council Leader that can call for just the council to discuss issues or matters.

What do you guys/gals think?

when you say a locked thread or something like that are you talking about something where each one of us would have our own thread that only the individual council member and the leaders could access or something that we all could access? I had thought that the home sec or someone in that position was kind of like the council leader but if thats not the case then I wouldn't mind a council leader as long as it would be put in place by the leaders and not a popularity contest or anything like that.

Let me expand a bit on my thoughts.

Before I was in the council, the council looked like this from the outside: A group of highly experienced players that came to a 100% consensus behind closed doors and directed the alliance constantly toward our goals whether they were long term or short term goals. The council on the outside always gave the appearance of being 100% in accord whether they were or not.

As far as being CA's Auxillary brains goes I mean that as well (and nowhale's also of course).

As an example say that CA comes to the council and says, "we have "X" situation with alliance "Y". I'm looking for suggestions from the council as to how we as an alliance should proceed."

Then we as council members should give suggestions and what we think possible results should/could be, counter suggestions made by other council members with other ideas or evidence, and all the while CA and/or nowhale is sitting in the background rubbing his chin, scratching his head, nodding sagely, pointing a regal finger from time to time and saying "I like that idea" or "this is not a direction that we as an alliance have chosen to go before", etc.

We as council attempt to come to a 100% unanimous agreement and if so CA's job is done and he announces the decision the council has made to the alliance. If we can not come to 100% agreement we put together (perhaps by internal vote) the best scenarios that we can come to a concensus on and CA chooses the direction that the alliance will go. That's the function of a leader to make a final decision when a unanimous vote can not be reached.

Once this decision is made CA announces the decision to the alliance at large and we ALL abide by it whether we agree with it or not. Any bickering or dissention that occurs should remain here and not feed back into the general alliance as CM or PMs. If you want a strong alliance you present a 100% united front to the alliance even if that's not the way it is. Then we, as council members, commit our troops/resources immediately to the cause and we LEAD the alliance. Dissention and bickering are the fastest way to show your members that the alliance is weak and to reduce their trust in us.

If we present a 100% united appearance and take the first steps the guys (and gals) will follow us anywhere we lead even if we wind up being wrong. I can't think of a stronger way as an alliance to function.

I couldn't agree more that we need to present the appearance at least of 100% unity on matters. The less unity we show, the more cracks will appear and the less people will be loyal and work together. Granted there will be times when we do not agree in reality about items that are brought to our attention but that is why we discuss and vote when we can not agree. When we do not agree I still feel that a vote would be needed to give CA and Nowhale some sense of direction to take when they make the final decision. Once the decision is made however, all discussion outside of here should point to the direction that has been decided on.