Thursday, January 24, 2013

Proposal: Party Time

Passes 8-5. — Quirck

Adminned at 26 Jan 2013 04:27:14 UTC

Add a new rule, “Parties”:-

Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party; this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party. A Party’s Size is equal to the number of Honourable Members who belong to that Party, and a Party is “larger” than another if it has a greater Size.

At any given time, one or more Parties may be “in Power”, as follows:-

  • If one Party has a greater Size than all other Parties, and a Size greater than Quorum, then it alone is in Power.
  • Otherwise, if two Parties have a greater Size than all other Parties, and their combined Size is greater than Quorum, then both of those Parties is in Power.
  • Otherwise, no Party is in Power.

As a weekly action, an Honourable Member may change the Party they belong to to either “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Green”, “Liberal”, “Religious”, “Conservative” or “Extremist”.

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

24-01-2013 12:36:51 UTC

for

nqeron:

24-01-2013 12:38:59 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2013 13:32:31 UTC

against We just had a team game; I’d prefer a solo.

nqeron:

24-01-2013 14:28:43 UTC

Last game was only part team with discrepancy in power - I’d like to try for a team game without so much secrecy and that is on equal footing.

Skju:

24-01-2013 14:48:11 UTC

for

Murphy:

24-01-2013 15:12:43 UTC

for

Murphy:

24-01-2013 15:16:23 UTC

The secrecy bar last round was way too high for me to keep up with (not that it wasn’t appropriate for the theme). Was the Auspex actually required to PM you when someone successfully joined your secret society? (I don’t remember ever getting such a PM, which may just mean that no one did successfully join it.)

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2013 15:27:25 UTC

[Murphy] I was required to send such a PM, yes. From my records, nobody ever joined your Cult.

scshunt:

24-01-2013 18:10:25 UTC

I’m thinking maybe some involuntary “teams” with interesting interactions. I’ll chew on this and vote later.

quirck: he/him

24-01-2013 18:58:30 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

24-01-2013 19:14:47 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

24-01-2013 19:50:57 UTC

against I wanna start messing with voting mechanics!

Larrytheturtle:

24-01-2013 20:09:03 UTC

for

Patrick:

24-01-2013 22:42:44 UTC

for

scshunt:

24-01-2013 22:51:34 UTC

against in favour of working from Clucky’s proposal.

robo1995:

25-01-2013 03:21:04 UTC

for