Monument of Leadership

Test Proposals

Test of Sponsorship Summary: In this test, players nominate fellow Egyptians that they feel are good leaders, and try to convince others in small random groups to support their candidates. Each participant gets one vote per round. Players cannot nominate themselves, and cannot vote for whom they nominate. Each week the player with the highest total of votes (cumulative) will pass the test. After signing up for this test, a player can designate a “nominee” at a University of Leadership. They cannot nominate themselves. The nominee must have a paid account, and also be on the Test. Their selection can be changed at any time unless a voting round is in progress. Each month, everyone that has nominated an eligible player gets put into random groups of 7 people (much like a demi-pharoah first round is done). The group shares a chat tab, and has 3 real days in which they can (and should) try to convince the other group members to vote for their nominee. Every person has ONLY one vote, and it is cast at a voting booth. Their choices of who to vote for at the booth are the nominees of the OTHER six group members (e.g. Playername sponsoring Bob). Players cannot vote for their own nominee. Votes can be changed at any point during the group discussion time. Votes are NOT announced to the group. After the discussion round ends, all nominees that received votes earn one point per vote. This total is cumulative, and does not diminish. Each week, the player that has the highest number of points will pass the test. Test passes will NOT announce runners up, but players can check their total points in their Self--> Tests menu. This test is aiming to recognize true leaders of Egypt. It is completely up to the players involved to determine what constitutes a good leader, and part of this test is to communicate that effectively to other participants. A common complaint about Leadership tests is that they are simply popularity contests. Here, the anonymity of voting is intended to allow players to vote their conscience freely. Because players cannot vote for their own nominee, and groups are random, there is less “vote trading” opportunity, and less ease of having mule characters pass. Also, it will likely be harder to “campaign” for passing the test because of the anonymous nature of voting. In order to encourage participation beyond the principle completion, only players that have valid nominations can themselves be nominated by others. Therefore, anyone hoping to *be* nominated and pass this test must themselves participate and support others. This also means that the players who receive points each month will not be absentee or quit people, but actual leaders in the current community. There is, of course, the chance that two people in the same group nominate the same person. In that situation, each can vote for the other person’s selection, which in effect, means voting for their own nominee. There is also the chance that a nominated player will end up in a round where they can vote for themselves! (if one of the other random group members had chosen them to nominate). These outcomes should only occur if the player has enough influence to be nominated a lot, and therefore these exceptions to the “spirit” of this test are allowed (and would not be considered “gaming” the test).

Test of the new Demi-Pharaoh For sometime now various critiques have been levied against the dynamic of the Demi-Pharaoh. One major issue has focused on the disadvantage on facing veteran players that tend to be better known but not necessarily better qualified than newer ones. Another has been the scarce interest in debates during selection rounds. A new set of rules is here proposed to alter the above dynamics of the test and hopefully have more fun and stimulate interest in participation. The general outline of the test would still envision the enrollment in the test and the formation of selections groups but instead of casting a single vote each participant will be able to cast up to 4 ballots. Each ballot would have different point values: A ballot good for 1 point; A ballot good for 3 points; A ballot good for 7 points; A poison ballot Not all ballots need to be used but each player can only use a ballot for each candidate up to a maximum of 4 candidates If 1 poison ballot is cast for a given candidate that candidate will lose 1 point If 2 poison ballots are cast for a given candidate that candidate will lose 7 point If 3 poison ballots for a given candidate that candidacy is 'Vetoed' even if the candidate has the overall higher point score in the group (this limits the number of possible candidates eliminated to 2) the arithmetical sum of points will determine the ranking of candidates. In the case the the highest or 2 highest point rankings have been Vetoed the third ranking candidate will advance In case of a point ranking tie the tie is resolved as follows: A) the player that has received the lowest number of Poison ballots advances, B) If players are still tie after evaluating the number of Poison ballots the player with the highest number of 7 points ballots will advance C) If players are still tie after evaluating the number of 7 points ballots the player with the most 3 points ballot will advance D) If the tie is not resolved at the step C a random selection generated by code will determine the candidate elevated to the subsequent round. The above idea was used in the 2010 Player Meeting in Pittsburgh and was borne out of ideas Balthazarr, Pyx, Asheara and Zildjan discussed.