Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[vcczar]

27 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Questions about alternative states requirements:

 

I read that former IL Gov Bruce Rauner is now a registered voter in Florida. Should FL be added as an alternative state with a moving date of 2020?

I also read that Susan Collins served as deputy state treasurer in the office of the Treasurer and Receiver-General of Massachusetts in 1993. Should MA be an alternative state for her?

Oh and I didn't know, that Bill Weld moved to NY in 2000 and even briefly ran for Gov of NY in 2006, after having been Gov of MA already. If he hasn't NY as an alternative state it should be added as well I guess.

I'll do that only if they end up running for a position in those states. Many politicians live in multiple states and change their primary residences when they aren't serving for a specific state. 

[Bushwa777]

The IL governor did that move only so he could avoid his own covid19 requirements 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

The IL governor did that move only so he could avoid his own covid19 requirements 

Rauner wasn't our gov during covid.

[Bushwa777]

11 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Rauner wasn't our gov during covid.

Shit your right I meant Pritzker and Wisconsin 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

Shit your right I meant Pritzker and Wisconsin 

He's not registered to vote there, so it's not an alt state. He has a house there, which he can stay at home during a stay at home order, because, you know, it's a home that he owns 🤣

[Bushwa777]

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

He's not registered to vote there, so it's not an alt state. He has a house there, which he can stay at home during a stay at home order, because, you know, it's a home that he owns 🤣

One with toilets unlike a few others he owns 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

One with toilets unlike a few others he owns 

If we want to continue this, ping me in the areas actually for it since you brought it up, but it is Friday and I have time.

[jnewt]

I'd like to suggest to add more economists and/or put stricter qualifications on becoming Fed Chair. As an amateur economist, it's become a huge pet peeve of mine seeing the people who are getting nominated in these playtests. For example, for reasons of out his control, Hestia just had to nominate Tom Udall to Fed Chair in our modern day playtest. This is incredibly unrealistic. No Fed Chair has ever held elected office. As far as I can tell, only three have held cabinet-level offices (Arthur Burns as an ambassador, and G. William Miller and Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretaries), all of whom were appointed to those offices after serving as Fed Chair.

I guess my recommendations for addressing this, aside from adding more economists (I'd be happy to help with this), would be to limit eligible candidates for Fed Chair to be those who have not held elected office and have not held any cabinet-level position except for Secretary of the Treasury. I get that there's probably no one else here that's bothered by this, though lol.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I'd like to suggest to add more economists and/or put stricter qualifications on becoming Fed Chair. As an amateur economist, it's become a huge pet peeve of mine seeing the people who are getting nominated in these playtests. For example, for reasons of out his control, Hestia just had to nominate Tom Udall to Fed Chair in our modern day playtest. This is incredibly unrealistic. No Fed Chair has ever held elected office. As far as I can tell, only three have held cabinet-level offices (Arthur Burns as an ambassador, and G. William Miller and Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretaries), all of whom were appointed to those offices after serving as Fed Chair.

I guess my recommendations for addressing this, aside from adding more economists (I'd be happy to help with this), would be to limit eligible candidates for Fed Chair to be those who have not held elected office and have not held any cabinet-level position except for Secretary of the Treasury. I get that there's probably no one else here that's bothered by this, though lol.

I think we'd quickly find ourselves having pols just for the purpose of Fed Chair though, at which point many might question why we don't just get rid of Fed Chair from the game.

[jnewt]

22 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think we'd quickly find ourselves having pols just for the purpose of Fed Chair though, at which point many might question why we don't just get rid of Fed Chair from the game.

Possibly. I already question it for the opposite reason though. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Possibly. I already question it for the opposite reason though. 

Wanted to emoji that but 'based' wasn't really doing it.  I guess I'm responding away with 'that's a mood'.  I understand. Don't know if I agree, guess I'm probably on the fence.

[vcczar]

@jnewt @OrangeP47 I've now increased the requirements for being Fed Chair, Pres of the Bank of the US, and FBI Director. It requires never having held elected office and having an admin ability of 3 (unless no one is eligible), in addition to the current requirments. CIA/National Intelligence doesn't have the same requirements since Dan Coats held the office and he had been a Senator. 

[OrangeP47]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@jnewt @OrangeP47 I've now increased the requirements for being Fed Chair, Pres of the Bank of the US, and FBI Director. It requires never having held elected office and having an admin ability of 3 (unless no one is eligible), in addition to the current requirments. CIA/National Intelligence doesn't have the same requirements since Dan Coats held the office and he had been a Senator. 

Probably fine for testing, though I might suggest having the FBI with the same rules as the CIA for some kind of "symmetry" but it's kind of a nitpick.  It's the sort of seem that seems like plausible linkage even if it didn't happen IRL. Just a thought.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Probably fine for testing, though I might suggest having the FBI with the same rules as the CIA for some kind of "symmetry" but it's kind of a nitpick.  It's the sort of seem that seems like plausible linkage even if it didn't happen IRL. Just a thought.

Maybe, I'll make it a % chance of automatic declining if someone has held elected office. 

[ebrk85]

Since we are on the subject of appointments I have noticed that it is impossible to get someone through with 1 Admin ability.  Even with unanimous consent from the faction leaders the 50/50 roll for each senator voting nay on admin 1 candidates has sank them since they need 60% to pass. @Ich_bin_Tyler in the 1840 test has had the same outcome. While I understand the reason to make it hard for a 1 admin to get through I doubt the intent was for 0% to pass a vote.  Plus if they do get confirmed you still may be penalized during the lingering phase.

[vcczar]

47 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Since we are on the subject of appointments I have noticed that it is impossible to get someone through with 1 Admin ability.  Even with unanimous consent from the faction leaders the 50/50 roll for each senator voting nay on admin 1 candidates has sank them since they need 60% to pass. @Ich_bin_Tyler in the 1840 test has had the same outcome. While I understand the reason to make it hard for a 1 admin to get through I doubt the intent was for 0% to pass a vote.  Plus if they do get confirmed you still may be penalized during the lingering phase.

I actually do want it to be 0%. 

[ebrk85]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I actually do want it to be 0%. 

Oh ha in that case never mind.

[Murrman104]

in 2020 Kay Ivey has died leaving the Red team with no viable candidates for Gov of AL, the Democrats by comparison have 5. I would suggest finding at least 2 or extra Republican candidates to be Gov of AL.

[Willthescout7]

10 hours ago, vcczar said:

I actually do want it to be 0%. 

Since that is your intent, I would make add a clause that the CPU won't pick those people. Right now in 1840 a lot of the time people with 1 admin are being picked by the CPU because they are liked by lobbies. Which then tanks party preference when they get rejected. 

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

Since that is your intent, I would make add a clause that the CPU won't pick those people. Right now in 1840 a lot of the time people with 1 admin are being picked by the CPU because they are liked by lobbies. Which then tanks party preference when they get rejected. 

Ok, good point. I upped the requirement to 2 admin for nomination.

[pman]

Have we already discussed the measures and their impact on party pref? In the 2016 Playtest we're in a "Great Depression" level of economic stability, we're in a military crisis mode, a climate crisis mode and yet until yesterday, the party pref was +1 for the President's party and even now, it's leaning towards the opposition but still no election bonus.

I feel like this was an issue in the 1916 playtest but in reverse with most of the measures looking super strong but party pref being maxed out towards the opposition.

I just can't believe that irl if we were in a Great Depression level of an economic crisis, that the party pref would be neutral.  I am not complaining and maybe this is the kind of issue that can't be fixed but I'd love to get some opinions on it.

Edited December 10, 2022 by pman

[pman]

I guess what I am getting at is, I understand measures can change quickly and can be impacted by legislative action- especially if the condition of the economy for example isn't in the extreme. But if we're going to use terms like Great Depression to describe the economy, shouldn't it be harder to get out of and shouldn't there be more of a penalty to the President's party/ faction? 

[OrangeP47]

Some meters, if extremely low, convey an extra election penalty outside of party pref penalty.

[pman]

Yeah, that's a good point Orange- for example Great Depression for the economy leads to a -3 for incumbent party in elections. Anyway, the 2016 Playtest is wild. Spending is maxed out, we're in a Great Depression, our military is in crisis mode and all this is after a third party challenge and the incumbent President just had a majority of their cabinet rejected.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, pman said:

Yeah, that's a good point Orange- for example Great Depression for the economy leads to a -3 for incumbent party in elections. Anyway, the 2016 Playtest is wild. Spending is maxed out, we're in a Great Depression, our military is in crisis mode and all this is after a third party challenge and the incumbent President just had a majority of their cabinet rejected.

The way I see it the current system is as it needs to be.  The meter penalties represent the people who will vote against an incumbent, regardless of party, when times are tough.  Party preference not being maxed negative at the same time represents high polarization meaning there's a lot of people who, regardless of tough times, will never ever ever vote for the other party.  Seeing as this is the year 2022 AD I think we can all understand that mindset and declare it realistic.  If it isn't you personally, it's likely your neighbor.