I vote YES on Proposition Ω.

My bill:
+Healthcare
+Equality
+Morality
-Technology
-Education
-Order

SEAL OF APPROVAL

I started to feel the same way as I tallied up the scores for year 5. If everyone was active, it would be a bit better, as it would be harded to get a majority. When I played this in real life, much fewer bills passed than the ~95% that pass on SEN.

Future optional rule changes:
-24/48-hour introduction periods
-Points banked every 2 years
-Publicly displayed scores every 2 years
-"Phased" policies

Comments, opinions? I won't be hosting another Internet Congress for awhile, this is just for future reference.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 29 2012, 5:20 pm by rayNimagi.

I thought 'phased' policies is how it was supposed to work anyway.

Having the different time periods seems pointless, too. Just give everyone 48 hours to submit bills, an extra 24 hours afterwards to vote on them and then wait for the president to post whether they pass them or not. Having individual time periods per bill seems like a lot of wasted effort.

This can't happen, would be inherently broken.

Your core game mechanics are fine, you don't need drastic changes.

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. No one has any legitimate concerns with how the game currently plays. The only problem is having a complete lack of additional things to do while waiting for your bills to be voted on. There's just a lack of stuff to do, especially in situations when you already have a good idea of what bills will pass for the rest of the game. The core game mechanics are solid though.

If you want to make alterations, I would suggest coming up with ideas to expand the gameplay through new mechanics, instead of altering the preexisting ones.

@Lanthanide, yeah I could see changing the time periods to be definitive deadlines not dependent on player actions. Each period could be ended early if everything was completed ahead of time, with the next period having its starting point shifted forward (without affecting its previous ending time). That could streamline the transition from period to period and would make it a lot easier for the host and players to keep track of deadlines.

Another idea might be leaving the public tracking of deadlines and such throughout the year to the players, with the host just updating the final result at the end of each year. That'd give the players more to do (well, at least one of them anyways), and add another possible layer of strategy (purposely confusing players as to the current phase or deadline). I could see some players thinking that'd be tedious or unnecessary, although I was tracking the deadlines all game anyways, so I don't think it'd be much of a problem in that regard. It might also be considered laziness on the part of the host, although it wouldn't really make anything easier for him since he'd need to keep track of everything himself.

In the end, if you want to make the game more engaging without ruining what's already there, you'll probably want to come up with some brand new mechanics that work well with what you have already.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jan 27 2012, 5:22 am by Azrael.Wrath.

YES to Omega.
Final No to Rai's.

For changing the rules of the game, can we make it so the changes need to be a 3/4 majority of everyone that voted, not all players? And make them have a 72 hour deadline to take that into account. That way the AFK players won't compromise the system.

That being said, I also propose the following rule change. Prop PIP (Punishing Inattentive Players) has a singular goal.


I vote yes on Prop PIP.

Final NO on PIP.

Final NO to PIP.
Moar war against fascism!

Save the squiddies bill:

+ Freedom
+ Economy
+ Environment
- Technology
- Education
- Order

Final yes to Rai's and payne's bills.

Yes on PIP.

Final no on Lant's bill.

I vote Final YES on Lant's bill and the Proposition Punish Inattentive Players.

k, well don't cry about it if someone who hasn't opened the thread once since the game started ends up winning.

It could be a strategy.

Being beaten by invincible alliance -> hate -> if I can't win so can't they
=o

Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath

Quote from poison_us

Final NO on PIP.

Quote from payne

Final NO to PIP.
Moar war against fascism!

k, well don't cry about it if someone who hasn't opened the thread once since the game started ends up winning.

Yea, because I'd rather get beaten by a group that votes en masse. No, I doubt anyone but you will win, as always.

Also, Ray, count me out for future rounds. This shit is stupid as fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_discipline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-line_vote

As previously mentioned, I think Ray has reproduced an actual political environment rather well.

A completely one-sided one, yes.

+Economy +Freedom +Morality -Order -Technology -education

We are the 1%

Yes on pip and omega

That only happened because we figured out what policy all the AFK players shared and made the party's platform against it

If everyone had been active, it wouldn't have been so one-sided.

Edit: Or one-sided at all, really. Another party promoting Technology and going against whatever policy the SRP all shared would have worked fine.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 28 2012, 3:25 am by Azrael.Wrath.

I vote final YES on Tikels' bill.