Deep Dive Feedback: Presidential Appointments & Confirmation Process

[10centjimmy]

5 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I think expansionist and isolationist should stay

If you appoint an isolationist as ambassador, should that automatically/roll to harm relations?

[ShortKing]

Just now, 10centjimmy said:

If you appoint an isolationist as ambassador, should that automatically/roll to harm relations?

I was responding to Ted's comment on generals, but yeah, I agree ambassadors with isolationist or nationalist should face some sort of penalty. 

[Murrman104]

Joseph P Kennedy as British ambassador representing an isolationist faction destroyed his career when he expressed said views during the early days of WW II so there is precident

9 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I was responding to Ted's comment on generals, but yeah, I agree ambassadors with isolationist or nationalist should face some sort of penalty. 

 

[MrPotatoTed]

42 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

If you appoint an isolationist as ambassador, should that automatically/roll to harm relations?

Should it matter whether the ambassador himself is isolationist, or just from the isolationist faction?

In other words, can I get the ideology boost from appointing an ambassador from the isolationist faction, and not get a potential relations penalty as long as the ambassador himself isn't isolationist?

[10centjimmy]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Should it matter whether the ambassador himself is isolationist, or just from the isolationist faction?

In other words, can I get the ideology boost from appointing an ambassador from the isolationist faction, and not get a potential relations penalty as long as the ambassador himself isn't isolationist?

I guess it depends since the Isolationist faction lobby is held by the faction with foreign affairs (under varying circumstances), so a trade or business ambassador without foreign affairs should not get penalized since they're not contributing to isolationism. 

 

Ed: I see what you're saying,  so yes you get a boost from the lobby and no penalty if the ambassador didn't have foreign affairs -> but they're gonna get it so you probably can't keep them there long if you don't want the relations penalty

Edited September 15, 2022 by 10centjimmy

[MrPotatoTed]

17 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

I guess it depends since the Isolationist faction lobby is held by the faction with foreign affairs (under varying circumstances), so a trade or business ambassador without foreign affairs should not get penalized since they're not contributing to isolationism. 

 

Ed: I see what you're saying,  so yes you get a boost from the lobby and no penalty if the ambassador didn't have foreign affairs -> but they're gonna get it so you probably can't keep them there long if you don't want the relations penalty

Actually, you raise a good point.  I was thinking Isolationist was an interest, but it's a lobby so by definition someone with foreign affairs experience in the isolationist faction is likely an isolationist.

[MrPotatoTed]

Okay, got all the nomination and acceptance stuff done, including ambassadors and military.

Now I'm working on confirmation process.  I'd like to simplify a bit so you don't have to do a full confirmation for positions that are clearly going to get confirmed.

So I'd start with a hierarchy:

1)  A Senate Majority Leader with iron fist can force a full hearing for any nominee(s) regardless of all other considerations.

2)  Unless a full hearing is called for by a Senate Majority Leader with iron fist, all nominees who have at least 3 admin (military for military officers) and don't have controversial are automatically confirmed.

3)  If a nominee has less than 3 admin (military for mil officers), has controversial, and/or isn't approved by an iron-fisted Senate Majority Leader, then a full hearing takes place.

Now I'm writing the rules for the full hearing, which starts in the relevant committee and then gets a Senate-wide vote.  If you have thoughts on how that should work, let me know asap.  Hoping to close this out in about an hour or so.

[Arkansas Progressive]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

Okay, got all the nomination and acceptance stuff done, including ambassadors and military.

Now I'm working on confirmation process.  I'd like to simplify a bit so you don't have to do a full confirmation for positions that are clearly going to get confirmed.

So I'd start with a hierarchy:

1)  A Senate Majority Leader with iron fist can force a full hearing for any nominee(s) regardless of all other considerations.

2)  Unless a full hearing is called for by a Senate Majority Leader with iron fist, all nominees who have at least 3 admin (military for military officers) and don't have controversial are automatically confirmed.

3)  If a nominee has less than 3 admin (military for mil officers), has controversial, and/or isn't approved by an iron-fisted Senate Majority Leader, then a full hearing takes place.

Now I'm writing the rules for the full hearing, which starts in the relevant committee and then gets a Senate-wide vote.  If you have thoughts on how that should work, let me know asap.  Hoping to close this out in about an hour or so.

If we're "simulating" a hearing, then maybe have senators with puritan question the nominee (with a d6), and it behaves like the scandal roll, with relevant traits making impacts on senators

[ConservativeElector2]

50 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'd like to simplify a bit so you don't have to do a full confirmation for positions that are clearly going to get confirmed.

That surprises me a bit lol wasn't the complain from a few days ago, that some positions like Generals or Ambassadors had not to go through a confirmation at all until now? I agreed with that assessment tbh

[10centjimmy]

50 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

If we're "simulating" a hearing, then maybe have senators with puritan question the nominee (with a d6), and it behaves like the scandal roll, with relevant traits making impacts on senators

In addition to the "questioning" action,  Senators could offer support/endorsement with a d6/10 roll with bonus based on debater/orator/charisma and malus on the opposing traits? Or this could be captured by vote swaying

[MrPotatoTed]

33 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

That surprises me a bit lol wasn't the complain from a few days ago, that some positions like Generals or Ambassadors had not to go through a confirmation at all until now? I agreed with that assessment tbh

Ha, true.  I tried to blend historical accuracy with also making it both quick and fun.  Did I hit the target?  Who knows!  Haha.

I did not include the questioning/scandal/etc idea.  It's one of those things that would be fun for one hearing, but not for thirty hearings every two years for 200 years. Haha.

I did include the possibility of a failed nominee gaining controversial, a controversial failed nominee gaining incompetent (barring them from future nominations) and the possibility that a defeated nominee causing party support backlash against either the President or Senate Majority Leader's party.  Plus chance that those who vote nay get either controversial or integrity, depending on how their vote is viewed.

Anyway, I've finished 2.3.  Once @vcczar accepts or declines changes, you'll be able to see it in all of it's...glory?  Ha.

[Willthescout7]

5 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Okay, got all the nomination and acceptance stuff done, including ambassadors and military.

Now I'm working on confirmation process.  I'd like to simplify a bit so you don't have to do a full confirmation for positions that are clearly going to get confirmed.

So I'd start with a hierarchy:

1)  A Senate Majority Leader with iron fist can force a full hearing for any nominee(s) regardless of all other considerations.

2)  Unless a full hearing is called for by a Senate Majority Leader with iron fist, all nominees who have at least 3 admin (military for military officers) and don't have controversial are automatically confirmed.

3)  If a nominee has less than 3 admin (military for mil officers), has controversial, and/or isn't approved by an iron-fisted Senate Majority Leader, then a full hearing takes place.

Now I'm writing the rules for the full hearing, which starts in the relevant committee and then gets a Senate-wide vote.  If you have thoughts on how that should work, let me know asap.  Hoping to close this out in about an hour or so.

Hard disagree on automatic confirmation. Part of the game is pushing through your nominees against opposition. This is taking simplifying too far. Hard pass. 

[10centjimmy]

Is it auto confirmation in committee and then a vote on the floor?

[Willthescout7]

IF you are going to do that, it needs to be a Mattis situation(arguably 5 mil) and independent. No way Austin deserves that same treatment, or Pompeo, or Gates, or Carter, and on and on. 

Plus, now an extreme ideology president can push through and extreme ideology cabinet without any pushback. Too far.

In my honest opinion, this change should not have been made. It simplifies too much and kind of breaks the phase.

[OrangeP47]

Yeah, so much is happening right now I can't keep up and like 80% of the time I don't even know these threads are here.  Auto-confirmation is a pretty unappetizing idea.  Will really states why, but it also feels like confirmation battles are probably like... "one of the big things that happens".  Removing them is kind of like having a TV without a remote in this day and age.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

So, in reading the changes the autoconfirmation is odd to me. I think what my sticking point would be with is the bar for the autoconfirm.

An admin of 3, in theory, is of average skill with strengths and weaknesses to be picked a part and worthy of the full confirmation. An admin 4, while only 1 higher, should be someone who is really on top of things and generally seen as expert in the area.

Looking at the individuals who are 4 admin for their historic stats includes Edwin Stanton, J Edgar Hoover, Kissinger, Bobby Kennedy, Dick Cheney, Madeline Albright, and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom for their times were seem as experts and easily would or did get confirmed with little fighting. Admin 3 includes Roger Taney, Robert McNamara, Janet Yellen, Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Pompeo, who are all a mixture of true skill and abilities but generally competent.

So I guess based on who has the 3 and 4 admin historically, I think a 4 fits the bill for autoconfirmation than a 3.

Also I’m aware some of those above have controversial but just picked a sampling of bigger names. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[MrPotatoTed]

I mean, how many real life Cabinet confirmations actually come out close?  
 

Even Merrick Garland, despite being rejected for Supreme Court, passed 70-30 in a 50/50 senate.  
 

Of the 15 cabinet positions, only two of Biden’s nominees were within five votes of failing.  In a 50/50 senate.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I mean, how many real life Cabinet confirmations actually come out close?  
 

Even Merrick Garland, despite being rejected for Supreme Court, passed 70-30 in a 50/50 senate.  
 

Of the 15 cabinet positions, only two of Biden’s nominees were within five votes of failing.  In a 50/50 senate.

I'm putting this in quotes because I want you to read it as if J Jonah Jameson is saying it.  "Most players are petulant children who are going to try to tank as many votes as possible out of spite.  It's what the people want."

I'll moderate to what Tyler's saying though.

Edited September 15, 2022 by OrangeP47

[Willthescout7]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I mean, how many real life Cabinet confirmations actually come out close?  
 

Even Merrick Garland, despite being rejected for Supreme Court, passed 70-30 in a 50/50 senate.  
 

Of the 15 cabinet positions, only two of Biden’s nominees were within five votes of failing.  In a 50/50 senate.

That argument works for a real life roleplay, but not a political video game. People want the opportunity to vote, even if it isn't realistic. One of the questions that people on discord and backers of the game are asking is whether you can do this and until now the answer was always yes. Not every player is Vcczar and wants a historical reenactment. They want ahistorical votes, up to and including confirmation. 

If I'm coming across strong, it is because I passionately believe this is 100% the wrong decision and it is my duty as one of the playtesters and backers to be honest and forthright.

I fully belive this change is spitting in the face of the people who funded this game.

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

That argument works for a real life roleplay, but not a political video game. People want the opportunity to vote, even if it isn't realistic. One of the questions that people on discord and backers of the game are asking is whether you can do this and until now the answer was always yes. Not every player is Vcczar and wants a historical reenactment. They want ahistorical votes, up to and including confirmation. 

If I'm coming across strong, it is because I passionately believe this is 100% the wrong decision and it is my duty as one of the playtesters and backers to be honest and forthright.

I fully belive this change is spitting in the face of the people who funded this game.

So what you're saying is "Most players are petulant children who are going to try to tank as many votes as possible out of spite.  It's what the people want." ?

[Willthescout7]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

So what you're saying is "Most players are petulant children who are going to try to tank as many votes as possible out of spite.  It's what the people want." ?

Yes, but grumpier

[Willthescout7]

Look, I understand the balance we are trying to walk here, but this isn't it. 

If this is something that is to be seriously considered, then the only compromise that seems worthwhile is to make it a game option. Option 1: all cabinet members have to go through the original rules (full confirmation process). Option 2: this new "streamlined' and boring way.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I mean, how many real life Cabinet confirmations actually come out close?  
 

Even Merrick Garland, despite being rejected for Supreme Court, passed 70-30 in a 50/50 senate.  
 

Of the 15 cabinet positions, only two of Biden’s nominees were within five votes of failing.  In a 50/50 senate.

I do see what you are saying and completely agree with the historic precedent of the nomination fights. I would be more than accepting of a 4 admin threshold but my usual refrain for changes it to test it out even on limited time. haha

[MrPotatoTed]

There's already the option to force a vote on every single nominee -- you just need to have a Senate Majority Leader who has iron fist.  And you don't even have to control them yourself -- CPU is set to default to challenging every nominee outside their own faction, provided that they have iron fist.

I appreciate everyone's feedback, even if some of it is ridiculously over the top ("spitting in the face of the people who helped crowdfund it" is just rude, especially as I don't see a penny of it myself.  I'm a volunteer, putting in insane hours to try to make this game as good as I can for no benefit beyond having a good game to play at the end.  That kind of feedback just leaves me disinterested in trying to help get the rest of the rules across the finish line.)

I'm all for it being a game option that can be toggled on and off -- I'm all for EVERYTHING being toggled on and off.  The truth is that I have no control over that, I'm not the programmer.

At the end of the day, it's up to @vcczar.  It's his game.

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

There's already the option to force a vote on every single nominee -- you just need to have a Senate Majority Leader who has iron fist.  And you don't even have to control them yourself -- CPU is set to default to challenging every nominee outside their own faction, provided that they have iron fist.

I appreciate everyone's feedback, even if some of it is ridiculously over the top ("spitting in the face of the people who helped crowdfund it" is just rude, especially as I don't see a penny of it myself.  I'm a volunteer, putting in insane hours to try to make this game as good as I can for no benefit beyond having a good game to play at the end.  That kind of feedback just leaves me disinterested in trying to help get the rest of the rules across the finish line.)

I'm all for it being a game option that can be toggled on and off -- I'm all for EVERYTHING being toggled on and off.  The truth is that I have no control over that, I'm not the programmer.

At the end of the day, it's up to @vcczar.  It's his game.

 

Yeah, I see no reason for a change. I disagree with @Willthescout7 in this aspect. I'm happy to change it once early release is out if there's more demand. I made the game to be somewhat of a historical simulator not as an ahistorical free-for-all. I believe I'm already go beyond where I really want to go with some of my scripted events.