Worker’s rights

also, this could be easily abused by a manager to slow the game down

We don’t have any managers yet, so it would be up to us who got put into those roles, or pulled back out.

The worst boss slows the game down by authorising nothing, and risks being demoted by unhappy underlings, and never promoted again. The best chilled-out-entertainer boss who posts “I hereby let everyone do everything!” in advance is more likely to rise through the ranks as a result, but will have thrown away all of their leverage in the process. It might be interesting to see what happens in the middle ground.

i want to explore this mechanic!

Needing to run your actions by another person just seems incredibly unfun and will likely result in less activity overall as people decide just not to do anything than risk getting punished

@clucky u wouldn’t need to run every action past a superior; u’d just need authorization in some form, it doesn’t have to be specific. nothing here stops blanket permission-granting

Seems as likely that players will ask their managers what they can usefully do next, or that a manager will post a “please manufacture some Wire or Cardboard before 5pm today, team” message to the blog and prompt some game action.

  I don’t like the part where I manage nobody because I think I should be able to overrule the managers and give orders if they’re being unresponsive/uncooperative.

The alternative that we’re already going with - that anyone can announce on the Discord channels what “we all need to do” in a department, and it’s up to the others whether to do something else instead - feels like it’s going against the grain of the explicit gamestate hierarchy. If one person is seizing the initiative and telling the others what to do, let’s have the option to put them in charge.

[Zack] Dynastic distance was off at the time of proposal, so I didn’t want to lock player actions to what you did and didn’t decide to do.

We need some kind of leadership to get us organized.