Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Ugluk » 22 Feb 2014, 00:49

NAY
Niakan is a tease.
User avatar
Ugluk
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 19 May 2009, 23:55
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1048)
All-game rating: (1028)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Pagane » 22 Feb 2014, 01:27

Ugluk wrote:NAY


Objections?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby connect4 » 22 Feb 2014, 02:55

Apologies. Apparently my subscription to the forum got messed up and therefore I didn't see any of the posts I had been made in the past three or four days. I will have to read up on this when I get home tonight or probably tomorrow, but is the voting phase actually open yet?
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Ugluk » 22 Feb 2014, 03:58

Voting has not officially opened, per 301.

I stand firm on Mascots. Deal breaker.
Niakan is a tease.
User avatar
Ugluk
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 19 May 2009, 23:55
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1048)
All-game rating: (1028)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby connect4 » 22 Feb 2014, 04:44

What stops a mascot from being part of the platform, and therefore this being allowed under this rule?
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby super_dipsy » 22 Feb 2014, 07:33

Thanks for those changes :)

One comment on your comments, and then one new thing that occurred to me.

Pagane wrote:If you've got 2 players tied in the election for Party Leader, then the one who has been a Party Member longer(even if it's only longer by 5 minutes) wins. So yes, if they both joined in the same thread then you have to go to the thread and see who posted his affiliation with the party first.

I understand that except in the case I tried to outline. I think it can be sorted with your 'in utero' terminology. If a party exists, then I absolutely understand that seniority is easy to determine if two new players join who joined first. My problem is with the INITIAL members. A party is not 'formed' until the end of the proposal phase; prior to that it is 'in utero'. So judging seniority based on 'who posted his affiliation to the party first' is meaningless in terms of 'the formed party' (which all other language seems to equate to 'the party') because you can't join or affiliate to something that has not been formed yet. However if you add affiliation to the 'in utero' party (which comes into existence as soon as someone posts the fact it exists) then the problem is solved. But it is not a biggie at all, as I say I am just nit-picking ;) . I am happy to leave as it is.

The bit that did occur to me was 'party rebels'. I could join a party that has a goal of always voting together on particular proposals, and then I could just vote whichever way I choose. I could ignore the will of the party and the party leadership with impunity. I did not see anything that allows a player to be ejected from a party, or indeed refused entry if the party so desires. The last bit is because if I was wanting to be really annoying I could join a party, go against its goals at every turn, perhaps get kicked out (if you add language to do that), then rejoin and repeat. I don't think there is anything to stop me rejoining at any time.

I am not saying this needs changes; you might decide that a party will quickly try to pass a rule that says for instance that all party members are allocated votes that follow the party leader with no choice to change, for example, which would make the above scenario moot. But I think we should think about ejection at least.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Pagane » 22 Feb 2014, 19:11

super_dipsy wrote:I understand that except in the case I tried to outline. I think it can be sorted with your 'in utero' terminology. If a party exists, then I absolutely understand that seniority is easy to determine if two new players join who joined first. My problem is with the INITIAL members. A party is not 'formed' until the end of the proposal phase; prior to that it is 'in utero'. So judging seniority based on 'who posted his affiliation to the party first' is meaningless in terms of 'the formed party' (which all other language seems to equate to 'the party') because you can't join or affiliate to something that has not been formed yet. However if you add affiliation to the 'in utero' party (which comes into existence as soon as someone posts the fact it exists) then the problem is solved. But it is not a biggie at all, as I say I am just nit-picking . I am happy to leave as it is.


My intent was for seniority to be measurable all the way back to the In Utero stage of the Party if necessary. Therefore, the player who proposed the party has first seniority, the first player to state that he is joining will have second seniority, etc etc. Granted it's rather vague in the current language, so I'll tweak it to say explicitly that seniority may include the In Utero stage.


super_dipsy wrote:The bit that did occur to me was 'party rebels'. I could join a party that has a goal of always voting together on particular proposals, and then I could just vote whichever way I choose. I could ignore the will of the party and the party leadership with impunity. I did not see anything that allows a player to be ejected from a party, or indeed refused entry if the party so desires. The last bit is because if I was wanting to be really annoying I could join a party, go against its goals at every turn, perhaps get kicked out (if you add language to do that), then rejoin and repeat. I don't think there is anything to stop me rejoining at any time.


The Party Platform can make requirements of Members. If a 'party rebel' is throwing a wrench in the gears, then the Party can always amend the Platform's requirements to shut him down. I'll add language specifying that Parties can penalize Members who don't comply with the requirements, and that the penalties cannot effect their points.


Ugluk wrote:
I stand firm on Mascots. Deal breaker.


All such flavor is perfectly legal. You want mascots to be required? Any special reason? What makes this your dealbreaker?



Anyone else have objections or questions?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Crunkus » 22 Feb 2014, 19:57

A party is forming. Their platform is laid out. I agree with it.

What advantage do I gain from joining the party?
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Pagane » 22 Feb 2014, 20:49

Crunkus wrote:A party is forming. Their platform is laid out. I agree with it.

What advantage do I gain from joining the party?


Should there be a point incentive? Proposals passed by a party member gives x points to fellow party members?

I'm intending this to be primarily a tool to build coordination between players. Say you have a goal you want to achieve that will take more than one piece of legislation. The party system makes it easier to build those coordinated campaigns to transform the game.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

Postby Crunkus » 22 Feb 2014, 21:54

Pagane wrote:
Crunkus wrote:A party is forming. Their platform is laid out. I agree with it.

What advantage do I gain from joining the party?


Should there be a point incentive? Proposals passed by a party member gives x points to fellow party members?

I'm intending this to be primarily a tool to build coordination between players. Say you have a goal you want to achieve that will take more than one piece of legislation. The party system makes it easier to build those coordinated campaigns to transform the game.


How does it build coordination between players?
How does it make it easier to build those coordinated campaigns?
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest