[Freeciv-Dev] Re: New alliances (PR#8394)

["rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8394 >


Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8394 >
> 
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Jason Short wrote:
> 
>>I don't like the excessive powers given to a single team leader.

Agreed. Alliances should not work the same as feudal allegiance,
but be much more democratic or egalitarian.

> What is the alternative? All the alternatives I can think of are worse by
> far.

All actions are "Proposed" but not executed until some sort of
collective decision is made. This could be as soon as a majority
of alliance members agree with it. The proposal is removed when a
majority disagrees with it. Agreeing is clicking on a Yes/Abstain/No
button set in a list of currently active proposals.

Note, this is compatible with a fixed leader scenario, as the fixed
leader is the one able to make the decision to execute. What one is
adding is a 2-phase step here, proposal and execute, where the
proposal stage has finite lifetime and visibility to all players
before it is actually committed. One can have different ways to
commit based on the alliance flavour one eventually chooses.


One can use simple one member one vote, or weight the voting by
the "strength" (RMS strength?) of the members. In the latter case
allying with a predominant player is equivalent to pledging feudal
subservience, but as more members join the alliance, the balance
of power may change.

Note actions can be executed at a given point in a turn, or as soon
as the necessary votes are in. There would be a worklist of proposed
actions available at all times for players to register their votes.

As a future extension, one could consider the level of majority as an
option for various types of proposals, where 2-1 or 100% might be
options - 67% is a super majority, and 100% grants veto powers to all
members.

>>How is the initial leader chosen? The player who proposes the alliance?

An alternative is to vote on a leader, and let the leader do these
activities. All team members should be able to propose actions, but
only the team leader execute them.

As the means of choosing the leader, members would maintain a ranked
list of all members. By dropping the lowest ranked member and
redistributing their votes to the next in line, one is guaranteed of
a leader selection in one vote (optionally a player could decline to
participate in which case votes are always redistributed).

One of the actions that should be always available should be a proposal
to select a new leader. As soon as this gains a super-majority, or
majority, there would be a new leader election. One could have term
leaders (1-10 turns, for instance) as an alternative, but I like the
"recall" element present in a continually available leadership proposal.

> The one who creates the alliance.

This can be the default until the first election. Or could be the
way it is done under types of gov't up to communism.

>   - Per

Cheers,
RossW
=====