AMPU: The Big Red Button (1960 Playtest)

[Vols21]

3 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

All I'm missing is @Vols21 Career track picks, but I know he'll mention me when he does.

Private Section:  Jack Kemp (drafted by the Buffalo Bills)

Legis:   Orin Hatch
Exec:  Kirk Fordice
Admin:  Katherine Ortega
Judge:   Guy Hunt
Military:  Jack Farris
Backroom:  our already disharmonious Chuck Grassley

Kingmakers:
Caspar Weinberger takes on protege:  George Deukmejian in CA

if we are allowed to activate both Kingmakers:  William Casey mentors Jack Kemp in NY

[pman]

Cross party votes for Congressional leadership is possible in real life (Manchin could support MM for Majority Leader), are they possible in the game as well?

[Vols21]

@Arkansas Progressive

ideolgy shifts

the following conservatives are becoming more traditional in their thinking 
James Martin
Winton Blount
Jack Edwards
 

Mack Mattingly
Kirk Fordice
Winfield Dunn

John Howard Pyle
Bud Wilkinson
Bob Stump

and the following Conservatives are Moderating their views 

Raymond Baldwin
John Coolidge
Ed Derwinski
Guy Vander Jagt
Houston Flourney

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, pman said:

Cross party votes for Congressional leadership is possible in real life (Manchin could support MM for Majority Leader), are they possible in the game as well?

You'd have to take a look in the rules, I believe it's the 2.2 rules document.  I know there are certain circumstances where it can be done, but don't recall immediately what those circumstances are.

 

[Willthescout7]

So on the congressional leaders thing:

The rules actually don't say one way or another. It seems to imply that they vote for their party, but never explicitly states that. It should also be recognized that it has never happened. However, I think it could have if Joe Manchin felt that it would win him votes in WV to deny Chuck Schumer the majority. Likely, I don't know but a realistic consideration when we have such tight margins.

In this game, it is clear that Pman is intending to go scorched earth on his party. This is a prime opportunity for him to really hurt them. 

My proposal: if the faction leader has independent or iron fist they may vote for the majority IF it would give them the majority. They would roll for a very high chance (actual percents to be debated but I lean 50 or 75) that they gain unlikable and disharmonious. There can be an enthusiasm drop or election penalty in the primaries. This would make it unappealing in most cases, but still allow role-playing and exciting events. 99% of the time the players wouldn't do it due to thr steep punishments. For the CPU, we make it a 95% chance they support their party so it doesn't go off the rails.

Granted, this issue is raised now because of its dramatic effects on the game. 1. The GOP would control all 3 branches and the Supreme Court due to the conversions. 2. It really hurts Blue party. 3. I myself stand to gain from it the most as my Pol is the only eligible person to become the GOP majority leader. 

That said, we should address it now due to trying to finalize the rules and this likely not coming up again. @MrPotatoTed @Arkansas Progressive

[Lars]

I wholeheartedly support my friend Will in this.

[Willthescout7]

Tyler mentioned Jim Jeffords of Vermont leaving the GOP to become independent and throwing the majority to the dems in the process. Not an exact anology but it fits

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Will said it above

Edited May 28, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler
Deleted bc Will said it above.

[pman]

30 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

So on the congressional leaders thing:

The rules actually don't say one way or another. It seems to imply that they vote for their party, but never explicitly states that. It should also be recognized that it has never happened. However, I think it could have if Joe Manchin felt that it would win him votes in WV to deny Chuck Schumer the majority. Likely, I don't know but a realistic consideration when we have such tight margins.

In this game, it is clear that Pman is intending to go scorched earth on his party. This is a prime opportunity for him to really hurt them. 

My proposal: if the faction leader has independent or iron fist they may vote for the majority IF it would give them the majority. They would roll for a very high chance (actual percents to be debated but I lean 50 or 75) that they gain unlikable and disharmonious. There can be an enthusiasm drop or election penalty in the primaries. This would make it unappealing in most cases, but still allow role-playing and exciting events. 99% of the time the players wouldn't do it due to thr steep punishments. For the CPU, we make it a 95% chance they support their party so it doesn't go off the rails.

Granted, this issue is raised now because of its dramatic effects on the game. 1. The GOP would control all 3 branches and the Supreme Court due to the conversions. 2. It really hurts Blue party. 3. I myself stand to gain from it the most as my Pol is the only eligible person to become the GOP majority leader. 

That said, we should address it now due to trying to finalize the rules and this likely not coming up again. @MrPotatoTed @Arkansas Progressive

I know it's probably for the 2.0 version of the game but I believe that factions should be able to switch parties. There is actually more pf a precedent for that than of a single faction voting for an opposing party leader as Majority Leader (which I am willing to do, because as Will said, I want to take it to my party). If the Dixiecrats can almost universally become Republicans and not face electoral consequences, why can't liberal Democrats be able to uniformly join the Republicans? It's happened in real life, literally during the 1960s. I know it would require a computer programing change so it probably won't happen in 1.0 of the computer game but I obviously think we should be able to pilot it in this spreadsheet driven version of the game. Again, probably too big of ask, but I put it out there. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by pman

[pman]

I also want to be clear, this is all just a game. I respect what @MrPotatoTed has done. No hard feelings at all. But it has put me on a very different path. Plus I honestly think the GOP is a better coalition partner for liberal legislation than the Democratic Party. 

[Hestia]

I don't think it's reasonable. Manchin would never do that, as the example used. Anyone else would just be a party switcher, they wouldn't be able to remain in their party. This is way too big of a change to be enacted for the game, and even if it was, I don't think that it's good to give a way for people to change parties every time they get upset with a decision made by another player. This has happened in other playtests as well where people get frustrated with something and try to strike against the party somehow. Just leaving the party is, IMO, a cowardly way out and shouldn't be an option since I think it will be abused way too much. It wrecks a lot more than it would 'solve'.

[MrPotatoTed]

43 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

So on the congressional leaders thing:

The rules actually don't say one way or another. It seems to imply that they vote for their party, but never explicitly states that. It should also be recognized that it has never happened. However, I think it could have if Joe Manchin felt that it would win him votes in WV to deny Chuck Schumer the majority. Likely, I don't know but a realistic consideration when we have such tight margins.

In this game, it is clear that Pman is intending to go scorched earth on his party. This is a prime opportunity for him to really hurt them. 

My proposal: if the faction leader has independent or iron fist they may vote for the majority IF it would give them the majority. They would roll for a very high chance (actual percents to be debated but I lean 50 or 75) that they gain unlikable and disharmonious. There can be an enthusiasm drop or election penalty in the primaries. This would make it unappealing in most cases, but still allow role-playing and exciting events. 99% of the time the players wouldn't do it due to thr steep punishments. For the CPU, we make it a 95% chance they support their party so it doesn't go off the rails.

Granted, this issue is raised now because of its dramatic effects on the game. 1. The GOP would control all 3 branches and the Supreme Court due to the conversions. 2. It really hurts Blue party. 3. I myself stand to gain from it the most as my Pol is the only eligible person to become the GOP majority leader. 

That said, we should address it now due to trying to finalize the rules and this likely not coming up again. @MrPotatoTed @Arkansas Progressive

It actually is specified in the rules.  "If the minority offices have been created and are active, then this officer must be a member of the majority party" .

I'd defer to @vcczar on whether to change it to the above.  My general thought would be that @pman is of course welcome to vote on legislative issues, etc, with the Republican Party -- but that he's still a Democrat (even if he's a "Democrat In Name Only") and therefore can't vote for the Republican congressional leaders.  That's my thought at least, but I defer to @vcczar

[Willthescout7]

3 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I don't think it's reasonable. Manchin would never do that, as the example used. Anyone else would just be a party switcher, they wouldn't be able to remain in their party. This is way too big of a change to be enacted for the game, and even if it was, I don't think that it's good to give a way for people to change parties every time they get upset with a decision made by another player. This has happened in other playtests as well where people get frustrated with something and try to strike against the party somehow. Just leaving the party is, IMO, a cowardly way out and shouldn't be an option since I think it will be abused way too much. It wrecks a lot more than it would 'solve'.

Who are you responding to? We had two proposals. Just for clarity.

[Hestia]

Just now, Willthescout7 said:

Who are you responding to? We had two proposals. Just for clarity.

Faction switching parties. I don't think any is a really especially good idea, since it doesn't make sense for a Democrat to vote for a GOP Leader and then remain a Democrat. 

[Willthescout7]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It actually is specified in the rules.  "If the minority offices have been created and are active, then this officer must be a member of the majority party" .

I'd defer to @vcczar on whether to change it to the above.  My general thought would be that @pman is of course welcome to vote on legislative issues, etc, with the Republican Party -- but that he's still a Democrat (even if he's a "Democrat In Name Only") and therefore can't vote for the Republican congressional leaders.  That's my thought at least, but I defer to @vcczar

Missed that part, my bad.

I'm not for party switching (at least not this game), but allowing some general skullduggery like this can be allowed though discouraged.

[MrPotatoTed]

22 minutes ago, pman said:

I know it's probably for the 2.0 version of the game but I believe that factions should be able to switch parties. There is actually more pf a precedent for that than of a single faction voting for an opposing party leader as Majority Leader (which I am willing to do, because as Will said, I want to take it to my party). If the Dixiecrats can almost universally become Republicans and not face electoral consequences, why can't liberal Democrats be able to uniformly join the Republicans? It's happened in real life, literally during the 1960s. I know it would require a computer programing change so it probably won't happen in 1.0 of the computer game but I obviously think we should be able to pilot it in this spreadsheet driven version of the game. Again, probably too big of ask, but I put it out there. 

I know Anthony said it would be possible to change factions in the game.  Not literally changing your Trump faction to be Democrat now, but possible to switch from playing the Trump faction to the Bernie faction mid-game, if you so desired.

[pman]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Faction switching parties. I don't think any is a really especially good idea, since it doesn't make sense for a Democrat to vote for a GOP Leader and then remain a Democrat. 

Yeah, I suppose I agree. Except, factions do gradually shift between parties. I think it would be fun if the player isn't punished for it if it's intentional. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, pman said:

Yeah, I suppose I agree. Except, factions do gradually shift between parties. I think it would be fun if the player isn't punished for it if it's intentional. 

Conservatives may begin to vote more for Red than Blue, but it helps the Red Conservative player and hurts the Blue Conservative player. That's how it is reflected in the game. 

[Willthescout7]

2 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Faction switching parties. I don't think any is a really especially good idea, since it doesn't make sense for a Democrat to vote for a GOP Leader and then remain a Democrat. 

So you are against both in principle? 

I think if you make the penalties steep enough it would simulate getting kicked from the party, at least with the people around during the time. 

 

[ShortKing]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

My proposal: if the faction leader has independent or iron fist they may vote for the majority IF it would give them the majority. They would roll for a very high chance (actual percents to be debated but I lean 50 or 75) that they gain unlikable and disharmonious. There can be an enthusiasm drop or election penalty in the primaries. This would make it unappealing in most cases, but still allow role-playing and exciting events. 99% of the time the players wouldn't do it due to thr steep punishments. For the CPU, we make it a 95% chance they support their party so it doesn't go off the rails.

I don't outright hate this idea (I certainly do not like it), but I think the circumstances would have to be exceedingly narrow to make sense. If a faction holds enough power to sway the leadership, there may be room for a path there if the ideology meters show the faction looking to buck their own party is extremely disgruntled ideologically and has the chance to select a leader of their choosing. For example, it's been reported that Susan Collins and John Thune reached out to persuade Manchin to switch parties and Manchin said he would if Thune were the Republican Senate Leader rather than the more conservative Mitch McConnell. For a liberal Democratic faction to vote against their own party to install a conservative Republican Leader doesn't make sense for the purposes of the game or for the rp aspect. This is a separate idea but one I have been thinking about since reading This Will Not Pass, but there have reportedly been House Democrats considering a deal to promise their votes for a Republican House Speaker who was more suitable than McCarthy if the GOP takes the House in 2022. This is somewhat different since the Speaker would still be a Republican, but it simulates the same aspect I think this game is going for. Ultimately, if you were to be able to cross your Party, it should only be in service of your ideology and under extremely narrow circumstances, if it were to be changed at all, which I don't find necessary.

Edited May 28, 2022 by ShortKing

[ShortKing]

17 hours ago, ShortKing said:

Kingmakers:

• Kingmaker Lyndon B Johnson takes on Lloyd Bentsen
• Kingmaker Joseph Kennedy Sr takes on Benjamin A Smith

Forgot that kingmakers with leadership can take on two more proteges, so if I can, I would like for LBJ to take on Jim Wright and Jack Brooks as well @Arkansas Progressive

[Willthescout7]

20 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I don't outright hate this idea (I certainly do not like it), but I think the circumstances would have to be exceedingly narrow to make sense. If a faction holds enough power to sway the leadership, there may be room for a path there if the ideology meters show the faction looking to buck their own party is extremely disgruntled ideologically and has the chance to select a leader of their choosing. For example, it's been reported that Susan Collins and John Thune reached out to persuade Manchin to switch parties and Manchin said he would if Thune were the Republican Senate Leader rather than the more conservative Mitch McConnell. For a liberal Democratic faction to vote against their own party to install a conservative Republican Leader doesn't make sense for the purposes of the game or for the rp aspect. 

I'm with you that if it is a rule it needs to be very narrow circumstances. And I'm not opposed to it being followed by ideology. 

[pman]

After thinking about it, I agree that changing the rules is not in the integrity of the game. It certainly goes against real life. Bernie wouldn’t vote against Chuck just to get revenge on Hillary.

There’s plenty of other ways I can help the GOP without requiring rules changes, like I will fully support any and all of their cabinet  picks 

[MrPotatoTed]

13 minutes ago, pman said:

After thinking about it, I agree that changing the rules is not in the integrity of the game. It certainly goes against real life. Bernie wouldn’t vote against Chuck just to get revenge on Hillary.

There’s plenty of other ways I can help the GOP without requiring rules changes, like I will fully support any and all of their cabinet  picks 

Absolutely.  And you’d be well within your rights to oppose my own faction at every turn of you so choose, too.  

[Willthescout7]

If the majority is against changing the rules to allow voting for the other party, I'm not going to argue. Just figured we should have the discussion while it was pertinet to do so.