I hadn't planned on removing any policy objectives from players, and phased policies would require point-banking.


Agreed, I think the next game should be like that.

Afraid that people would try to take you down whenever you get into the lead? Some of my favorite games are based upon "There can only be one winner," where people turn against the leading scorer as he approaches victory. It keeps the game more interesting and dynamic, in my opinion.

I agree.

I had thought of implementing roles with unique powers such as Vice President, Supreme Court Justice, President Pro Tempore, Filibusterer, Secretary of State and even Rules Committee Chairman. These roles would be appointed by the President, and might imbalance the game. Plus, it would make the game more complex, which is bad when I'm trying to keep things simple.

Also, I thought of a yearly budget mechanic. The President would create a bill that contains an increase or decrease on every policy in the game (regular bill rules still apply: 50% increase, 50% decrease). This would be the only type of bill a President could introduce.

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

More like, the eventual winner wouldn't be determined by skill, because the most skilled player would be immediately obvious and kept suppressed by the other players. Everyone would have to keep their heads down and maintain scores roughly equivalent to everyone else's until the last term, so everything up to that point would be entirely irrelevant. It just wouldn't be fun.


My favorite board game, Settlers of Catan, is completely centered around that concept. It works because there's multiple ways to win, and you don't necessarily need the help of other players to achieve victory. Almost everything is public knowledge all the time as well.

Applying that to this game, where you require the help of other people to advance and the entire thing is based around secret information, would be inherently broken.


Not this game. The game is not any less interesting or dynamic because "someone is leading by too much". No one knows scores at all so that isn't a problem.

Playing well would be punished and everyone would have roughly the same score the entire game regardless of what they did. No one would bother trying because of the consequences, everyone would just be mediocre and the eventual winner would be determined entirely by the last term, so basically, at random. Definitely not interesting or dynamic, it'd make it about as pointless and static as possible.

It would completely undermine the gameplay and prevent any possible strategy which is otherwise present.

Yes on PIP I guess?

Because hilarious.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 28 2012, 9:57 pm by FaRTy1billion.

I shall vote yes on PIP

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

Final Yes on Tikels' bill.

payne's bill awaits presidential action.

I sign payne's bill.

Payne's Bill and Proposition Omega have passed. Raitaki's Bill will soon be available for action from the President.



In future games, I think I'll allow the President to pre-sign any bills before the voting time expires.

Raitaki's and Lanthanide's Bills await presidential action. Proposition PIP has gone into effect.

Haha, PIP requires people vote Yes in order to be eligible to win. This means payne and poison can't win

I'm already losing. ;D

Sorry Raitaki, but I have to veto your bill, for reasons of which you're already aware. I'd say you should pay more attention to party messages in the future, but this is the last year now

I veto Raitaki's bill.

I sign Lanthanide's bill.

I sign TiKels' bill.

A 2/3rds YES majority on Raitaki's' Bill by ~9:45pm (or 24 hours after Azrael's veto) on January 31st will override Azrael's veto. Currently, Congress has a 100% YES vote on
Raitaki's Bill.



Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 31 2012, 4:41 am by rayNimagi.

You mean my bill?

I don't know what you're talking about.

You still got it wrong, Ray. There's only 66% YES on Raitaki's bill.

Anyone who doesn't have Healthcare should be voting "no". The idea was to not introduce increases in the new policies, since any SRP member doing so would necessarily screw the others since our new policies were all different.

Also, really unsure why votes are being carried over. They weren't carried over when I vetoed Payne before. Voting for something to pass if it isn't vetoed is not the same thing as voting to override a veto on it, by any stretch.

For the sake of consistency, it really seems like the previously used method should have continued to be used. That method made the most sense. I'd like to continue seeing a fresh slate for voting on veto overrides.

Quote from Lanthanide

Haha, PIP requires people vote Yes in order to be eligible to win. This means payne and poison can't win

That means that you can't either, along with Raitaki. This is a simulation, and loopholes are even easier to exploit here than they are in real life.

EDIT: Final NO on all bills I haven't voted for but I can still vote for.

Raitaki and I both voted yes on PIP, so I don't know what you're talking about. You and payne are the only people that voted No.