AMPU To Do List - Completions List

[vcczar]

Filled out all of the "Do Not Enforce...." Pres Actions. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Lingering Effect change. @MrPotatoTed and other playtesters. Let me know if this makes sense. This is based on the old rules. I don't know why I changed the rules. I wouldn't have done so unless there was a reason, but I don't remember what that reason was. Anyway:

Actually, based on what you say here, "I propose we go back to the original system, which was that there was a certain % chance that a meter would move, and if it was going to move, then it was weighted to move in the direction of the + or - that had the highest total (not average) lingering effects in play."

I assume what we did based on this was that if you had something the was rev/budget

75/5, 25/10, 30/10, then it was 130/25 and so no matter in this instance, either nothing would happen or Rev/Budget would go up.

I haven't read through your new rules yet, but just to clarify what the old rules were:

There was a % chance that the meters would move.  If that % chance hit, then you'd roll again to see if it went up or down.  So in your example where it is 130/25, you'd add them (155), then divide.  So 130/155 = 84% chance it goes up, 25/155 = 16% chance that it goes down.  Again, that's contingent on it first passing the % chance that it moves at all.

So there was a strong incentive to keep adding more "good" things for a meter -- it would increase the odds that a meter would go up, if it was moving at all.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I haven't read through your new rules yet, but just to clarify what the old rules were:

There was a % chance that the meters would move.  If that % chance hit, then you'd roll again to see if it went up or down.  So in your example where it is 130/25, you'd add them (155), then divide.  So 130/155 = 84% chance it goes up, 25/155 = 16% chance that it goes down.  Again, that's contingent on it first passing the % chance that it moves at all.

So there was a strong incentive to keep adding more "good" things for a meter -- it would increase the odds that a meter would go up, if it was moving at all.

After reading your new rules, I think what I've quoted above about the original rules is better -- it's certainly simpler, and it gets the job done.  I see you're concerned about historical era still having an impact, but we can keep those current rules for historical era, which I think give a % chance that it moves towards the center.  If you prefer to make it a % chance that it goes up or goes down depending on the historical era, that's fine too -- just make it a separate roll.  So you roll to see the historical era impact.  Then you roll to see if there's a lingering impact, and in what direction.

So if historical impact moves domestic stability -1 but lingering laws move it +1, it stays where it is.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

After reading your new rules, I think what I've quoted above about the original rules is better -- it's certainly simpler, and it gets the job done.  I see you're concerned about historical era still having an impact, but we can keep those current rules for historical era, which I think give a % chance that it moves towards the center.  If you prefer to make it a % chance that it goes up or goes down depending on the historical era, that's fine too -- just make it a separate roll.  So you roll to see the historical era impact.  Then you roll to see if there's a lingering impact, and in what direction.

So if historical impact moves domestic stability -1 but lingering laws move it +1, it stays where it is.

 

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

After reading your new rules, I think what I've quoted above about the original rules is better -- it's certainly simpler, and it gets the job done.  I see you're concerned about historical era still having an impact, but we can keep those current rules for historical era, which I think give a % chance that it moves towards the center.  If you prefer to make it a % chance that it goes up or goes down depending on the historical era, that's fine too -- just make it a separate roll.  So you roll to see the historical era impact.  Then you roll to see if there's a lingering impact, and in what direction.

So if historical impact moves domestic stability -1 but lingering laws move it +1, it stays where it is.

Do you remember why I ended up having to change from the original rules? I wouldn't have changed them had there not been an issue. 

[vcczar]

@Willthescout7 and I have finished filling out the politicians. 

[MrPotatoTed]

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

Do you remember why I ended up having to change from the original rules? I wouldn't have changed them had there not been an issue. 

I assume you did it because you were bored, of course.

Haha.  I don't know.  My best guess is that it was either a moment of manic euphoria "THIS WILL MAKE IT ALL BETTER!" or more likely it was maybe an idea that started as trying to change things so that we weren't constantly in crisis mode all the time.  But we've added different things that help with crises, including making the cabinet impact much better now.

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I assume you did it because you were bored, of course.

Haha.  I don't know.  My best guess is that it was either a moment of manic euphoria "THIS WILL MAKE IT ALL BETTER!" or more likely it was maybe an idea that started as trying to change things so that we weren't constantly in crisis mode all the time.  But we've added different things that help with crises, including making the cabinet impact much better now.

I think it had to do something with things constantly in crisis mode. I'll just hope the new things buffer the faults of the old system. I'll go and change it back to the old rules, unless you want to type them in. I'll get to them tomorrow. Let me know if you like anything of the new additions I was going to add.

[MrPotatoTed]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think it had to do something with things constantly in crisis mode. I'll just hope the new things buffer the faults of the old system. I'll go and change it back to the old rules, unless you want to type them in. I'll get to them tomorrow. Let me know if you like anything of the new additions I was going to add.

I think most of what you wrote as the new rules either is either already in the original rules, or covered already in the cabinet-impacting-the-meter rules.  The small new bits that aren't already covered elsewhere are I think the most complicated parts that don't add much other than work and math.  Haha.  

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed Lingering effects have been changed back to the original rules, but I small chance of the meters going away from the larger raw number. 

[vcczar]

There's probably some more still in there, but I tried to find all the Legis Props that trigger a proposal next session. In every case, they say that the president's party will propose (random member), and it won't count against total proposals. 

[vcczar]

Fixed the sentence that was found that pre-dated the creation of voting power rule for US Reps. 

[vcczar]

Clarified that in Committee votes, US House Committee members do not use Voting Power. 

[vcczar]

New rule:

Promotion to Master Kingmaker

If a Kingmaker sees their protege become a Presidential Nominee or VP Nominee during the last presidential election, then they have a 50% chance of gaining Master Kingmaker. This is not applicable in pre-12th Amendment Elections.

[vcczar]

Added Fed Reserve Chairs to start date info, although it is possible one or two of these people may need to be added to the game. I think added all of them, but I'm not sure. 

[vcczar]

Added this not to all the election rule docs:

Note: Prior to the first primary or general elections, players will select their candidates for every office. If a state allows primaries, and a player hasn’t an eligible candidate for office, then they have the option to generate a candidate to run for that office. This candidate will be obscure, pliable, passive, lackey, and start with a -1 election penalty. They will have the bare minimum requirement for that office. This generated candidate will be of the player’s party and share the same ideology and initial expertise as the player’s current party leader.

Because I anticipate this question: No, these people will not resign automatically should the win and serve their time or fail to win. 

[vcczar]

@Willthescout7

In regards to what you say below, can you point out where in the rules this is needed because @MrPotatoTed and I have delt with what traits cancel out what traits in the rules doc, so I just need to know where it is needed.  

"1. The rules have ambiguity regarding trait gains or when certain traits block the gaining of other traits.

2. 1916 playtest had some questions about whether traits canceled out during faction leader rolls or blocked traits. The language used was different (harmonious blocks as opposed to harmonious and disharmonious cancels out). We weren't sure what your intention was.

3. Clarify intention and use the same language throughout for whether traits block or cancel."

 

[vcczar]

Foreign Affairs section is now moved after the Congessional Session. @MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

Accepted @MrPotatoTed's SC rules in 3.0

[vcczar]

Fixed the Judicial Act typo so that it says Judiciary Act typo in the Supreme Court Constitution Plank

[vcczar]

Updated this again to clarify more things and also to have the US Census update at this time:

Note: Prior to the first primary or general elections, players will select their candidates for every office. Additionally, the US Census will be updated at this time to show the EVs/# of Reps for each state. If a state allows primaries, and a player hasn’t an eligible candidate for office, then they have the option to generate a candidate to run for that office. This candidate will be obscure, pliable, passive, lackey, and start with a -1 election penalty. They will have the bare minimum requirement for that office. This generated candidate will be of the player’s party and share the same ideology and initial expertise as the player’s current party leader. They will have no other traits. They will be 40 to 60 years old. Their religion, race, natural born citizenship, etc will be random. A politician cannot be generated to run for president.

[Willthescout7]

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Willthescout7

In regards to what you say below, can you point out where in the rules this is needed because @MrPotatoTed and I have delt with what traits cancel out what traits in the rules doc, so I just need to know where it is needed.  

"1. The rules have ambiguity regarding trait gains or when certain traits block the gaining of other traits.

2. 1916 playtest had some questions about whether traits canceled out during faction leader rolls or blocked traits. The language used was different (harmonious blocks as opposed to harmonious and disharmonious cancels out). We weren't sure what your intention was.

3. Clarify intention and use the same language throughout for whether traits block or cancel."

 

@pman @Arkansas Progressive they both saw the problem.

We really noticed it at faction leader rolls. Section 2.2.3. There might be more areas but I haven't seen them.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

@pman @Arkansas Progressive they both saw the problem.

We really noticed it at faction leader rolls. Section 2.2.3. There might be more areas but I haven't seen them.

I'll wait for @MrPotatoTed to respond. Somewhere in the rules he typed up a list of what cancels out what. I may just apply that to rules 3.0 so people just look there. 

[Willthescout7]

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll wait for @MrPotatoTed to respond. Somewhere in the rules he typed up a list of what cancels out what. I may just apply that to rules 3.0 so people just look there. 

It's not so much confusion of what traits cancel which, but more an issue of language. 

Traits being 'canceled' by other traits is written in most places. So Harmonious canceling disharmonious. However, in faction leader rolls it is written as 'block.' Block can be interpreted differently than cancel. It could be interpreted (and how we did) that having Harmonious 'blocks' a roll to gain Harmonious. So they don't cancel out because they never gained it in thr first place because the roll was blocked. 

We weren't sure if this was your intention, so it was more about making sure block and cancel aren't used interchangeably and that you meant them to mean different things.

[vcczar]

@Willthescout7 updated Acting President. This allows a VP to become a full president before the Pres Action phase, if necessary. 

3.0.33 Acting Presidency

 

The VP will be given an option to refuse the title of Acting President upon the first death/resignation of a president by responding to the Pres Action “Set Precedence by Refusing to be an Acting President.” This will be prompted at the president’s exit from office, whenever it occurs. If the VP opts to take office as an Acting President, then the Pres Action will remain as an option in the future. A VP who who is “pliable” or “passive,” will automatically accept being an Acting President, but he or she can opt to set the precedence via Pres Action later. 

 

Until “Set Precedence by Refusing to be an Acting President” is issued, a VP that suddenly becomes president cannot name their own cabinet, can have only one pres action, has no veto authority, and cannot run for reelection with incumbency powers. Once the above mentioned Pres Action is issued, the former VP will have all the full powers of the presidency, and so will all future VPs that take over for a President. 

 

If the 3rd in line in succession (i.e. someone who is not Pres or VP) becomes president, then they will be Acting President.

[vcczar]

@Willthescout7 Trait canceling. I'll polish this up at some point so it isn't just a copy+paste from the draft rules

3.0.34 Trait Canceling 

The rules will occasionally mention traits canceling out each other. Use this guide that comes from the draft rules to see which traits cancel out which traits.

 

• Charismatic (if already uncharismatic, then they get canceled out).

• Uncharismatic (if already charismatic, then they get canceled out).

• Debater (if already incoherent, then they get canceled out.)

• Incoherent (if already debater or orator, then they get canceled out).

• Orator (if already incoherent, then they get canceled out.)

• Disharmonious (if already harmonious, then they get canceled out.)

• Harmonious (if already disharmonious, then they get cancel out.)

• Integrity (if already controversial, then they get canceled out.)

• Controversial (if already integrity, then they get canceled out.)

• Likable (if already unlikable, then they get canceled out.)

• Unlikable (if already likable, then they get canceled out.)

• Manipulative (if already predictable, then they get canceled out.)

• Predictable (if already manipulative, then they get canceled out.)

• Puritan (if already pliable, then they get canceled out.)

• Pliable (if already puritan, then they get canceled out.)

• Lackey (if already leadership, then they get canceled out.)

• Cosmopolitan (if already provincial, then they get canceled out.)

• Provincial (if already cosmopolitan, then they get canceled out.)

• Delegator (if already micromanger, then they get canceled out.)

• Micromanager (if already delegator, then they get canceled out.)