Thursday, January 24, 2013

Proposal: Did the guy who wrote EE understand how cookies/sessions are supposed to work?

Quorums 4-9. — Quirck

Adminned at 26 Jan 2013 04:28:47 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “Voting Blocks” and give it the following text

An Honorable Member may belong to one or zero Voting Blocks. By default, an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block. The Voting Block that an Honorable Member belongs to is tracked in the GNDT in a column called “Voting Block”. If an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block, this field is blank for him.

As a Weekly Action, an Honorable Member may Join A Voting Block by changing their Voting Block field in the GNDT to one or more English words, each of which have the first (and only the first) letter capitalized and separated by a single space. The string must be at least 3 characters in length, and no more than 20 characters in length. Upon doing so, they cease to be a member of whatever Voting Block they previously belonged to (if any).

If an Honorable Member belongs to a Voting Block and another Honorable Member belongs to the same Voting Block and has cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the former Honorable Member may not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote on that proposal. Instead, their vote is the same as the Honorable Member who belongs to the latter Honorable Member. This holds even if the first Honorable Member casts a DEFERENTIAL vote on the proposal (but he may still cast such a vote for the purposes of having a EVC). If two or more Honorable Members belong to the same Voting Block and have each cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the Vote of the Honorable Member who cast their Vote earliest shall be used for all members of that Voting Block.

posted by Clucky at 24 Jan 2013 19:40:46 UTC Comments (19)

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

24-01-2013 19:55:23 UTC

imperial Seems kinda pointless to join a block.

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2013 20:03:41 UTC

for I like this, and it has a lot of potential for further integration.

Larrytheturtle:

24-01-2013 20:10:38 UTC

for

Murphy:

24-01-2013 20:17:22 UTC

for

nqeron:

24-01-2013 20:53:06 UTC

This collides a bit with the party system.  I also am not too sure about it in terms of play. imperial

Patrick:

24-01-2013 22:42:46 UTC

against

scshunt:

24-01-2013 22:51:48 UTC

for, but I would like to see some limit on the number of Voting Blocks.

scshunt:

24-01-2013 23:05:22 UTC

for  arrow

Cpt_Koen:

25-01-2013 01:41:11 UTC

imperial I’m afraid this gives too much importance to timing - trying to be the quickest to vote on a Proposal isn’t exactly what I’d call fun gameplay.

robo1995:

25-01-2013 03:24:10 UTC

imperial Agreed with Cpt_Koen. Especially since some people (as in myself) are in different timezones than others, which means this would be inherently unfair.

scshunt:

25-01-2013 03:26:39 UTC

Why are you voting IMPERIAL if you *disagree* with the proposal?

Don’t be afraid to stand up and say no!

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2013 08:52:51 UTC

against Per Koen. Also fiddly for the enacting admin (or, more frequently, the “oh wait I can’t enact this yet after all” admin) to count up the votes, or for players to check whether given votes are legal.

And mechanically this is a big reward for the “bored accomplice” strategist. If I can persuade a friend to sign up, change one GNDT field and then just post a random blog comment every Friday, I get free double votes for the rest of the dynasty.

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-01-2013 11:47:58 UTC

against Per Kevan. CoV.

Cpt_Koen:

25-01-2013 13:48:50 UTC

against Standing up and saying no!

scshunt:

25-01-2013 14:16:19 UTC

against per Kevan

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2013 16:23:55 UTC

Someone else can join the voting block to make use of the “bored accomplice” though.

Part of the point of this dynasty, i thought, was to play around with voting mechanics. Which is normally not done because its “fiddly for the admins” but cool to do every once in a while.

The “getting the quickest vote on a proposal” is a valid point, but I think its something that can be delt with later. The core idea is still far more interesting to me than just “everyone can choose from this list of teams” which we seem to do in a bunch of dynasties,

quirck: he/him

25-01-2013 19:52:06 UTC

against

Skju:

25-01-2013 22:44:04 UTC

against
More fiddly than interesting.

Kevan: he/him

26-01-2013 07:39:43 UTC

The fiddliness isn’t intrinsic - a mechanic where the first voter clearly listed the other votes they were using from their bloc would be alright. Forcing players to comb through the GNDT to work out what votes exist is just bound to slow the game down.