Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

It's kinda lame though cause everything is pre-ordained it's not longer a game.

I think I agree for the same reason we like the 25% thing with the CPU rules we were just discussing. The first set of rules doesn't allow for a candidate from a state with Kingmakers to ever be beat. No point in running any candidates as each state has a predetermined faction that is guaranteed to win.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

It's kinda lame though cause everything is pre-ordained it's not longer a game.

I was responding to EBRK with that, not your question,  for your question I believe it’s the second option.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I was responding to EBRK with that, not your question,  for your question I believe it’s the second option.

I'm addressing Ebrk's issue.

[MrPotatoTed]

I think everyone misinterpreted my answers.  I was saying they opposite of what you guys think I said. Haha

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think everyone misinterpreted my answers.  I was saying they opposite of what you guys think I said. Haha

So you think these are the correct rules?

 

Pre-Primary Inter Party elections:

Add the # of Kingmakers and proteges in the state

Add +2 to the incumbent

Apply any biases +/-

Apply any election bonuses/penalty accrued

Roll a 6-sided die

Total the above

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, ebrk85 said:

@MrPotatoTed @vcczar @Ich_bin_Tyler @Willthescout7

While we are on 2 set of rules for the same thing- for Gov/Sen/Rep pre-primary elections it says:

• If primaries do not exist, then the two nominees in the general election will be the candidates with most number of politicians with “kingmaker” in that state. If tied, it will be the factions within the parties with the most politicians from that state (randomized if tied). 

But right underneath that it says for pre-primary primaries we should:

Pre-Primary Inter Party elections:

• Add the # of Kingmakers and proteges in the state

• Add +2 to the incumbent

• Apply any biases +/-

• Apply any election bonuses/penalty accrued

• Roll a 6-sided die

• Total the above

These are clearly 2 different set of rules for deciding a winner in the same election.

This was what all my posts were referring to Ted.  I agree with what you said on the other one.

[Willthescout7]

While we are also having this discussion, 

I lobby to extend the 25% rule set to Representative elections as well, that way there is a consistent rule set that governs the CPU approach to each election. It'll make it easier to code, since that part can be copy and pasted.

[MrPotatoTed]

14 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

So you think these are the correct rules?

 

Pre-Primary Inter Party elections:

Add the # of Kingmakers and proteges in the state

Add +2 to the incumbent

Apply any biases +/-

Apply any election bonuses/penalty accrued

Roll a 6-sided die

Total the above

Oh! I thought you were talking about the other one.  I do prefer the “just kingmaker/statesmen” rules as it feels more reflective of how it really worked before primaries.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Oh! I thought you were talking about the other one.  I do prefer the “just kingmaker/statesmen” rules as it feels more reflective of how it really worked before primaries.

The problem though is since draft is locked to ideo and there's only a limited selection of pols, in a large number of circumstances there's literally nothing you can do to influence how many pols per state you have because moving pols between states is also extremely limited and not really reliable, so you're basically locking who can even get past the primary on rails.  There are pols which will never be used.  That's insanely stupid.

[jnewt]

Has there been talk of a potential penalty or way to shoot down a nomination of someone who is unrealistically young for their position? In the 1948 playtest, the President has nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court at age 26. No one has been nominated to the Supreme Court younger than 32, and that was back in 1812. I’m strongly against setting hard age requirements where they didn’t exist in real life, but I find it highly improbable that a President would ever nominate someone that young and obscure to the Supreme Court. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by jnewt
typo

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Has there been talk of a potential penalty or way to shoot down a nomination of someone who is unrealistically young for their position? In the 1948 playtest, the President has nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court at age 26. No one has been nominated to the Supreme Court younger than 32, and that was back in 1812. I’m strongly against setting hard age requirements where they didn’t exist in real life, but I find it highly improbable that a President would ever nominate someone that young and obscure to the Supreme Court. 

There are amendments that do that, they can be passed if you wanna.

[jnewt]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

There are amendments that do that, they can be passed if you wanna.

Right, but my point is about realism, not about actual hard requirements. No one’s ever tried nominating someone who’s barely old enough to rent a car to the Supreme Court. And if they did, the Senate would shoot it down right away. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Right, but my point is about realism, not about actual hard requirements. No one’s ever tried nominating someone who’s barely old enough to rent a car to the Supreme Court. And if they did, the Senate would shoot it down right away. 

Missed the "against" thought you were asking for a hard limit.  Personally though I don't think there's anything we can do about the confirmation vote that wouldn't just be a de-facto hard limit, though, as anything to influence the vote would basically be a rejection every time, which is, a limit, wether we call it that or not.  Maybe something different such as giving both the Pres and the Justice controversial.

[jnewt]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Missed the "against" thought you were asking for a hard limit.  Personally though I don't think there's anything we can do about the confirmation vote that wouldn't just be a de-facto hard limit, though, as anything to influence the vote would basically be a rejection every time, which is, a limit, wether we call it that or not.  Maybe something different such as giving both the Pres and the Justice controversial.

How about just adding to the automatic confirmation rule (I.e. the rule where if the first nomination is rejected by the Senate, then the second nomination is guaranteed if they meet the specified requirements), you just add an age range?

[OrangeP47]

Just now, jnewt said:

How about just adding to the automatic confirmation rule (I.e. the rule where if the first nomination is rejected by the Senate, then the second nomination is guaranteed if they meet the specified requirements), you just add an age range?

Because like I said, that basically is a hard limit by another name.

[ebrk85]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Because like I said, that basically is a hard limit by another name.

Well not really. Nothing it preventing the Senate from confirming the original nominee. It's similar to adding the requirement when you block a cabinet nominee the replacement must meet certain requirements (like admin 3+, etc.)

Edited April 16, 2023 by ebrk85

[jnewt]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Because like I said, that basically is a hard limit by another name.

I mean, there’s also ideological requirements once you get to the second nomination, so I don’t see why that’s as big a deal, when those other requirements are already serving as a proxy for a more acceptable nominee. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, ebrk85 said:

Well not really. Nothing it preventing the Senate from confirming the original nominee. It's similar to adding the requirement when you block a cabinet nominee the replacement must meet certain requirements (like admin 3+, etc.)

 

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

I mean, there’s also ideological requirements once you get to the second nomination, so I don’t see why that’s as big a deal, when those other requirements are already serving as a proxy for a more acceptable nominee. 

So you're just wanting a vote? Maybe I misunderstood, but sure, that'd be fine.  I thought you wanted a vote and then that vote to be no, which was like... was that not what we just said we were not going to do?  But yeah, if you just want the Senate to vote, sure.

[OrangeP47]

I'm trying to put these losers into the election sheet in 1840 so it's a bit hard to read every single word 😛

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

 

So you're just wanting a vote? Maybe I misunderstood, but sure, that'd be fine.  I thought you wanted a vote and then that vote to be no, which was like... was that not what we just said we were not going to do?  But yeah, if you just want the Senate to vote, sure.

I don't really have an opinion on this myself either way. But I think he's just looking to place a little tighter restriction on who can be an auto-confirmed replacement nominee like we do for cabinet nominees.

[jnewt]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

 

So you're just wanting a vote? Maybe I misunderstood, but sure, that'd be fine.  I thought you wanted a vote and then that vote to be no, which was like... was that not what we just said we were not going to do?  But yeah, if you just want the Senate to vote, sure.

Sorry, now I’m not following haha. 

Right now, once a nominee is rejected for the Supreme Court (or cabinet), there are certain requirements the second nominee for that position must meet, and they are automatically confirmed if they meet those requirements. I’m suggesting we add an age range (or minimum age limit) to that criteria, since the game is set up to automatically confirm that second nominee. Right now, we can freely vote against that first nominee (just like would happen IRL), but we wouldn’t be able to vote against that nominee if they were nominated after the first nominee was voted down. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Sorry, now I’m not following haha. 

Right now, once a nominee is rejected for the Supreme Court (or cabinet), there are certain requirements the second nominee for that position must meet, and they are automatically confirmed if they meet those requirements. I’m suggesting we add an age range (or minimum age limit) to that criteria, since the game is set up to automatically confirm that second nominee. Right now, we can freely vote against that first nominee (just like would happen IRL), but we wouldn’t be able to vote against that nominee if they were nominated after the first nominee was voted down. 

Oh, well TBH that's a separate issue and and TBH not one that really factors into anything I care about haha.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

That's insanely stupid.

Hey! YOU’RE insanely stupid!

 

haha, just kidding.  We have a difference of opinion, not a big deal.  For me, the fact that you need to either draft more politicians for that state or work your way towards getting a kingmaker there is a feature, not a bug.  It’s a strategy game.

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Hey! YOU’RE insanely stupid!

 

haha, just kidding.  We have a difference of opinion, not a big deal.  For me, the fact that you need to either draft more politicians for that state or work your way towards getting a kingmaker there is a feature, not a bug.  It’s a strategy game.

I wasn't calling your opinion stupid, I'm calling the unforeseen consequences stupid.  I don't think people realize, but sometimes there's literally no player control over the draft.  The results of this rule is that there's 0 player agency.  None whatsoever.  There would be eras where playing a certain faction would have 0 point.

[OrangeP47]

Perhaps let me make my point less verbose:  The only way to offer the player control over what states they draft for, truly, is to scrap draft ideos.