|
Post by Lynx Shaman on Mar 31, 2006 16:13:28 GMT -5
Why did you choose to make the Senate Action and the Government affected by said action two separate votes (1 Vote for Action and 1 Vote for Government Affected, rather than 1 Vote for Action to Affect Government)? It seems odd that if 20 votes go to Denounce fascism, 2 go to condone technocracy, 10 to condone anarchy, 7 to condone theocracy, and 2 to condone communism, that the end result would be to Condone fascism. The way that works, voting to denounce a hated government increases the chance that it will be condoned, even if nobody votes to condone that government. Why not make it a scoring thing, where denouncing votes cancel out condoning votes, and vice versa?
If that wasn't an option, though, there should be some story explanation for each outcome when voting for the Judgement of the Senate. Something like that could help explain why the majority choice might not be instituted.
Example: In the above example, perhaps the Senate would look at the votes and feel that Fascism was being unfairly treated by the rest of the nations, and that therefore it needs a boost to help it along.
|
|
|
Post by jc on Apr 1, 2006 3:32:11 GMT -5
It's because they have to decide two things. First, what kind of resources they're going to use. Should they provide packages of workers and resources to a government, or spend money hindering the activities of a government? They vote on this issue independantly of anything else. As soon as they do so, all the Senate workers get together and get all these tools ready. Then they have to pick a government to target. Of course, you'd think that people would be able to change their target government, since if Condone came up, nobody would pick Fascism (except for the Fascists). This is easily explained by saying they all have to make their inputs all at the same time, for whatever reason, and so have no time between learning that they ended up Condoning something and picking something other than Fascism. I personally like it this way... The only way I'd like it changed is to put in three votes: Condone X Denounce X Condone or Denounce? (Or Abstain?) The third would determine which of the first happened --- so if the Senate had decided to Condone, you'd vote for whatever you had put in Condone. If the Senate had decided to Denoucne, you'd vote for whatever you had put in Denounce. Then, if people put in too many "Abstain" in the first parts, it may end up flip-flopping : if it comes up Condone, and more people Abstain when it comes to Condoning, the Senate chooses Denouncing (or Abstaining, if it was second place) and looks at the Denounce X votes.... That way might be good, but I don't see anyone doing anything other than Denounce Fascism + Condone Mygovernment + Condone/Denounce (depending on how many people you suspect are condoning your government)... since only Fascists like Fascists, and everyone else hates Fascists, it'll probably sit on Denounce Fascism for practically ever
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Apr 1, 2006 11:55:56 GMT -5
That's true..
Hey, I just got a cool idea. Fascism is kind of powerful, so what if I say they can't participate in the Senate? Ie. their votes don't count. And also take them off the list of governments affected by judgement, since the Senate has no power over them anymore. They're kind of lone wolves.
That way the attention should be more equally distributed among the sort of less extreme govt's.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Apr 1, 2006 18:12:03 GMT -5
That is a good idea. No-one likes them. Kick them out!
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Apr 3, 2006 7:30:45 GMT -5
Here here. Down with fascists. And, I agree that the condone/denounce needs to be "targetable".
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Apr 3, 2006 7:45:08 GMT -5
I did think of that idea but I think it's kinda funny that it isn't. Matches up to the real-life stupidity of the way some voting things work.
|
|
|
Post by psiweapon on Apr 5, 2006 21:31:35 GMT -5
If Fascism were to be left out of the Senate's Judgement, so should be Anarchy. Let's face it - no institution of any sort is going to open the door for any self-proclaimed anarchist community.
By the way, no matter how much I try to do a smooth who-opposes-who schematic of BM goverments, I fail miserably.
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Apr 6, 2006 7:24:40 GMT -5
Possibly because everybody hates everybody... even of their own government type. It's battlemines and Rast wants as much fighting and rank scrabling as possible. Hey, that's got me thinking...(a dangerous prospect, I know)... how 'bout an overly complex proposal which would require huge amounts of coding with little practical benefit. (Rast just loves those. ) Anyway, what if there were some sort of benefits from having neighbors with agreeable governments? Right now, the current benefit is if your neighbor is of your type, they can't attack you (and you can't attack them), but what if there were some other benefits? (I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but just thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else has thoughts on the matter.)
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Apr 6, 2006 15:05:58 GMT -5
off-topic spam I think the only solution here is to do away with condoning, and maybe also remove Fascism from the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Apr 6, 2006 16:51:11 GMT -5
Do away with condoning? Don't make the game too negative...
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Apr 6, 2006 16:52:04 GMT -5
You could instead condone the government that has the fewest number of members? That way, the number of people per government balances out a little more.
|
|