Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

[Ugluk]

NAY

[Pagane]

NAY

Objections?

[connect4]

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?

[Ugluk]

Voting has not officially opened, per 301.

I stand firm on Mascots. Deal breaker.

[connect4]

What stops a mascot from being part of the platform, and therefore this being allowed under this rule?

[super_dipsy]

Thanks for those changes

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

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.

[Pagane]

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.

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.

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?

[Crunkus_old]

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

What advantage do I gain from joining the party?

[Pagane]

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.

[Crunkus_old]

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?