Yes to Farty's draft and his completed bill assuming it remains unchanged.

Final yes to Lant's bill and yes to Farty's bill if it is submitted without any changes.

Rai's Complete Dominance Bill:
+Equality
-Technology

Final yes to Raitaki's bill.

+Morality
+Economy
-Technology
-Order

Final yes to Lanth's Farty's and Rai's bill.

Final yes to my own bill ;D

Final yes to Tikel's bill.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was trying to say, "Smith won't get +3 Technology and Jones won't get -3 Environment. Smith would get +3 Technology and Jones would get +3 Enivronment."

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 5 2012, 4:38 am by rayNimagi.

That is what I assumed when writing my response. I just don't want to see you ruin your own game.

Final NO to everyone's Bill!
I won't bother submitting one since it'll get downvoted to oblivion anyways.

So basically, you are offered the opportunity to negotiate favorable terms for yourself with the other players, and you only consider these options:

1) Say they can all "suck your dick".
2) Submit something that only helps you.
3) Get mad people won't pass something that only helps you.

I don't see how any of these actually help you more than, you know, trying to compromise with other players. It seems that the dynamic of this game is being entirely lost on you at the moment.

I have modified my 1st Bill to make sure I'd at least get one more vote.
However, instead of voting for my bill, this person decided to vote against it for no apparent reason. The bill had, I believe, a balance of +0 on his policies. If it doesn't affect his citizens, but affect mine positively, I really do not see why he'd refuse to vote FOR it.
... Unless, of course, there is some kind of anti-democratic party ruling under the table, preventing him for voting against my bill for certain obscure reasons.

I lost interest in this game as soon as I realized I would get owned by the simple fact that policies are not randomized often enough, and that for the greater good, I will end up seeing my Technology policy getting raped to oblivion.

I reiterate my proposition to abolish the Party, and the President position.
I also want a reform to randomize more often the policies.
And lastly, I demand that me and my citizens become independent from this country that only knows how to hurt us, the minority, for their own greater good.

I was elected to represent my own district, not all of yours. If your bills do not help my district, I will refuse it. It is my mandate, and I stick to it.

Why would someone help you if it doesn't help them?

You're certainly not trying to help anyone else without helping yourself, so why would you expect it from others?

The point of this game is not for everyone to help you win.


Policies are not re-randomized at all. There will be no point at which you will stop losing points from -Technology bills.

You're going to get owned by the simple fact that you're content sitting back and blaming game mechanics for your own inability to play well with others. This game is heavily dependent on working with other players, but you've been consistently intent on working against everyone else.

For the greater good: you can help the citizens of another district while not affecting yours.

And I believe policies are randomized on the 4th year.

You should read the rules. Every four years, new policies are introduced. Nothing happens to the ones you already have. That would make no sense and destroy any semblance of legitimate strategy by completely removing any kind of long-term prospects.



As an update to my earlier suggestion about mixing positive and negative policies, I was thinking that there could be even more options made available to further vary the gameplay. One thought was that perhaps everyone could be randomly chosen as "A" or "B" at the start of the game (with no one knowing which they are, or how many of either there are). For the entire duration of the game, all people in group "B" will have the +/- policies they receive inverted (so if all "A" players get three + policies, all "B" players get three - policies; if all "A" players get +2, +4, -4, then all "B" players get -2, -4, +4).

Things should still be even since you can both gain and lose points from a positive or negative policy. The only way the differing number of positive/negative policies should be imbalanced is if the total number of any player's positive policies is not equal to either the total number of another player's positive policies or that other player's negative policies.

For example:

There are three players. Their policies are as follows:

Player 1: +2, +2, +4, +4, +4, -4
Player 2: +2, +2, +4, +4, +4, -4
Player 3: -2, -2, -4, -4, -4, +4

These three players would be balanced, because they each have the same capability to gain/lose the same number of points on any given bill.

They would continue to be balanced as long as, for the entire duration of the game, Player 1 and 2 always received the same numerical values for new policies, and Player 3 always received those numerical values inverted for new policies.

Example: It would no longer be balanced if, say, three new policies were added that were negative for everyone.

Player 1: +2, +2, +4, +4, +4, -4, -2, -4, -4
Player 2: +2, +2, +4, +4, +4, -4, -2, -4, -4
Player 3: -2, -2, -4, -4, -4, +4, -2, -4, -4

This is no longer fair, with Player 3 being at a significant disadvantage because he does not have the potential to gain as many points from any single bill.

However, he also does not have the ability to lose as many points, so perhaps giving players an option to desync themselves from the other players for this sort of trade-off would be possible? That would likely complicate game balance quite a bit though, whereas this suggestion of simply having one group of players with inverted numerical values for the entire game is fairly straightforward.

Something to consider, anyways. Since players could pretend to be in the opposite group from the one they're actually in, I think it'd diversify gameplay a bit more, which seems to be something you're looking to accomplish. You'd just have to consider whether or not policies could still receive a balanced distribution.

However, you don't need to change much. Your game mechanics are already pretty solid, drastic changes aren't necessary.

Edit: This may be one of those instances where you don't have a very good perspective on the gameplay because you're the host instead of a player. I would actually be interested in hosting this in the future, with basically no modifications to your current ruleset, if any. I would advise you to try playing it before significantly changing the core gameplay.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 5 2012, 9:50 pm by Azrael.Wrath.

We don't have any negative secret objectives now because it was confusing.

It took me awhile to realize that you were saying that these are the points they have gotten from policies. Not the actual policies they hold!

They can do that now (e.g. pretend to be against Order but secretly want Order). I will not say to what extent people have been doing this.

I only had the chance to play it once, and it was in real life where everyone had to vote (because we were all in the same room). That made the gameplay a bit different, so not everything has translated perfectly to month-long online play. I'd be happy to join a game of this if you or anyone else wants to host it.

Precisely.

Final YES on Tikel's bill.

Due to the lack of opposition, I submit my bill:

+Morality
+Freedom
-Technology
-Order

Final YES to my bill, and to Raitaki's and Tikel's bills.
And might as well make mine for Lanth final, just for fun.

Sorry for the delay (if anyone is paying attention), I was out of town yesterday and just got back home now.

Year 3's bill introduction phase is over. Lanthanide's, Raitaki's, and TiKels's bills all await presidential approval. Farty, your votes were past their deadlines, so they didn't count (not that it matters). I'll put them down in case President Azrael.Wrath is not present to sign the bills in time, so that Congress can override the (possibly inadvertent) "pocket veto".

I've also put down Lanthanide's, Raitaki's, and TiKel's votes for Farty's bill.

Note that Lanthanide's bill has about 1.5 hours left to act on it.