Wednesday, October 26, 2011

RFC: Different Reprenstation idea

If there is currently a rule called “Involuntary Representation Service” OR there is not a rule called “Stimulus Package” this proposal does nothing.

Add a new dynastic rule called “Voluntary Representation Service”. Give it the following text

In the busy world of today, it is a well known fact that not everyone can always make it to the polls. To equip players to both have their voice heard and yet keep their busy life styles a representation system has been established. Each player has a field tracked in the GNDT called “Representitive” and may, at any time, spend 1 SP (provided they have at least one) to change their Representitive to the name of any Player (including their own). New players start with their Representitive as themself.

Any DEF votes a player makes shall count as the same as their Representitive, provided their Representitive is still an active player. This chains, so if their Representitive also votes DEF it will count the same as their Representitive’s Representitive.

If an active player does not vote on a proposal upon resolution, and that proposal does not already have a quorom of valid FOR or AGAINT votes, has not been self-killed or vetoed by the emperor and has more than one valid vote, each active player who did not explicity cast the vote immediately casts the same vote as their Representitive (again, this chains). In the case where a player is their own representitive, their representitive is idle, or a chain is created, the players vote is considered to be one of abstention. If, including those votes and the valid votes explcitly cast on the proposal, more than half of the votes on the proposals are FOR then the proposal passes is enacted, otherwise is fails.

Set each players Representitive to their own name.

Looking for feedback on mechanic / wording

Stuff that should be clear:

1) The implicit votes won’t actually keep idle people alive as they haven’t commented.

2) The wording is designed such that reaching quorom still needs explicit votes

3) This only works on proposals, not DoVs or CfJs or anything else of the like

Another possible tweak would be to make VETOs count as all your representivies (and sub-representivies) automatically voting against.

Potential problems: someone gets a bunch of meat puppets to join, set him as their representivie, and then make random comments to stick around while the guy wields a vote large enough to outweight everyone else.

Comments

Pavitra:

26-10-2011 19:40:10 UTC

Spelling: Representative.

I like the concept. Useful, convenient, and dangerous enough to be interesting.

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 19:44:35 UTC

I had this on my drawing board before I came up with SPs. Basically, I didn’t propose it because it was too complex. If you still want to go forward, I would suggest:

1) Ignore explicit DEF votes. That reduces the length of the rule and allows someone to actually vote DEF.

2) I don’t know if instead of doing it like this, we could just weight the vote of the person voting if that person is a representative.

3) I don’t like spending SP for this. It should be a free daily action. In this regard, I think the “Employement”-style idea is better, if it were somehow mixed with this.

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2011 19:49:40 UTC

> 1) Ignore explicit DEF votes. That reduces the length of the rule and allows someone to actually vote DEF.

You could make the same argument against having emperors control DEF votes normally.

> 2) I don’t know if instead of doing it like this, we could just weight the vote of the person voting if that person is a representative.

The problem with that is it a) makes figuring out quorom harder or b) makes it harder to phrase such that implicit votes don’t go to quorom totals (so a proposal can’t pass as fast riding on implicit votes, which is really the only thing mitgating my potential problem)

> 3) I don’t like spending SP for this. It should be a free daily action. In this regard, I think the “Employement”-style idea is better, if it were somehow mixed with this.

Fair enough, though I’m not sure what you mean by “Employement”-style

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 19:54:55 UTC

Check Amnistar’s proposal. It would be better if an Employer terminology is used. Basically, the mechanic from that idea is used to round up your audience, then you use this one to control votes.

The argument about DEF is not exactly the same, because you expect the Emperor to have some idea of where the dynasty is going, so voting DEF there normally doesn’t hurt. Then, again, I only suggest dropping it for simplicity, not really because its too much of a political issue.

ais523:

26-10-2011 20:24:24 UTC

Needs to avoid loops in explicit DEFs. Also, to default Representative to the first player in alphabetical order.

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2011 21:06:16 UTC

> Needs to avoid loops in explicit DEFs

In the case of a loop, everyone votes the same as their representivie - i.e. DEF

> Also, to default Representative to the first player in alphabetical order.

Sure thing, after I pass a motion to rename you to ZZZZais523

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2011 21:07:00 UTC

Actually, that would just make everyone’s representative 404NOTFOUND =)

Prince Anduril:

26-10-2011 22:28:06 UTC

I also wouldn’t have ‘story text’ in the ruleset.

arthexis: he/him

27-10-2011 04:21:09 UTC

I love adding story text to the ruleset, makes it feel more unique and more in line with the theme.

scshunt:

27-10-2011 05:30:49 UTC

^