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.
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
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.
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.)