Questions on game

[saka8623]

I am Japanese, but is it possible to open Japan earlier than Perry actually did?

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, saka8623 said:

I am Japanese, but is it possible to open Japan earlier than Perry actually did?

Yes, if the event for it occurs earlier. I think 1840 is the earliest possible date. 

[Bushwa777]

So in 1868 Plessy V. Ferguson was decided against segregation.  My question is there are several scripted events that talk about poll taxes being enacted after reconstruction ends.  With segregation being illegal now can poll taxes be enacted? 

[Arkansas Progressive]

32 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

So in 1868 Plessy V. Ferguson was decided against segregation.  My question is there are several scripted events that talk about poll taxes being enacted after reconstruction ends.  With segregation being illegal now can poll taxes be enacted? 

From my understanding the game has poll taxes as separate from segregation, so they would still be enacted, since IRL poll taxes had to be abolished by amendment (and also there's two SCOTUS decisions relating to it, re: Breedlove v. Suttles and Harper v. Virginia

[ebrk85]

38 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

So in 1868 Plessy V. Ferguson was decided against segregation.  My question is there are several scripted events that talk about poll taxes being enacted after reconstruction ends.  With segregation being illegal now can poll taxes be enacted? 

4 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

From my understanding the game has poll taxes as separate from segregation, so they would still be enacted, since IRL poll taxes had to be abolished by amendment (and also there's two SCOTUS decisions relating to it, re: Breedlove v. Suttles and Harper v. Virginia

I believe the same as APRog for the same reasons..  In the 1948 playtest, you ended segregation but we still have states with polls taxes in effect.

[Bushwa777]

29 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

I believe the same as APRog for the same reasons..  In the 1948 playtest, you ended segregation but we still have states with polls taxes in effect.

President Taft the greatest president of the US there ever was or ever will be.....get it right

Edited June 10, 2023 by Bushwa777

[Bushwa777]

Question: I had a supreme court justice resign instead of facing an impeachment trial.  The rules say give him controversial and unlikable which I did (the trial came because of improper SC Justice in gen events) but my question is if he does not get pardoned does he get removed from game?  Or if he gets pardoned do I remove the traits just given?  Rules do not make it clear 

[ebrk85]

Need clarification on applying the meters to elections...again.

 

I know we established the faction enthusiasm meters are only applied in states that favor that ideology.

What about the other meters?  So if Qualify of Life gives a +1 to Liberals is that across the board or also just in states that favor Liberals?

[OrangeP47]

5 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Need clarification on applying the meters to elections...again.

 

I know we established the faction enthusiasm meters are only applied in states that favor that ideology.

What about the other meters?  So if Qualify of Life gives a +1 to Liberals is that across the board or also just in states that favor Liberals?

I think that's definitely across the board, because the whole point of that is "look, the liberal ideology is working" or something, which wouldn't be state specific.

[Bushwa777]

11 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think that's definitely across the board, because the whole point of that is "look, the liberal ideology is working" or something, which wouldn't be state specific.

Agree 

[Largo833]

I was just thinking of an issue regarding faction ideology that was in play during Matt's 1772 playtest and I think he improvised an answer to it, but I figure it's worth checking what the official rules are-

The rules state that a faction's ideologies must be adjacent to each other, so for instance they can't have the Prog and Mod cards unless they also have Lib.  So, what happens if the majority of a faction's pols are Mod, but it also has more Prog and LW Pop pols than any other faction (and doesn't qualify for the Lib card)?  Does it lose the Mod card?  Does it lose the Prog and LW Pop cards?  Does it gain the Lib card anyway?  And if it does lose the Prog and LW Pop cards, what happens if it's the only faction in the game with anyone from those ideologies (we did have one point in our game where there was exactly one RW Pop)?

[ebrk85]

5 minutes ago, Largo833 said:

I was just thinking of an issue regarding faction ideology that was in play during Matt's 1772 playtest and I think he improvised an answer to it, but I figure it's worth checking what the official rules are-

The rules state that a faction's ideologies must be adjacent to each other, so for instance they can't have the Prog and Mod cards unless they also have Lib.  So, what happens if the majority of a faction's pols are Mod, but it also has more Prog and LW Pop pols than any other faction (and doesn't qualify for the Lib card)?  Does it lose the Mod card?  Does it lose the Prog and LW Pop cards?  Does it gain the Lib card anyway?  And if it does lose the Prog and LW Pop cards, what happens if it's the only faction in the game with anyone from those ideologies (we did have one point in our game where there was exactly one RW Pop)?

Rules say they keep what they have the most of. So on this case keep Mod. If no other Prog/LW Pops exist those cards would get attached to whoever has the Liberal card (as the faction with the neighboring ideology).

[MrPotatoTed]

15 hours ago, Largo833 said:

I was just thinking of an issue regarding faction ideology that was in play during Matt's 1772 playtest and I think he improvised an answer to it, but I figure it's worth checking what the official rules are-

The rules state that a faction's ideologies must be adjacent to each other, so for instance they can't have the Prog and Mod cards unless they also have Lib.  So, what happens if the majority of a faction's pols are Mod, but it also has more Prog and LW Pop pols than any other faction (and doesn't qualify for the Lib card)?  Does it lose the Mod card?  Does it lose the Prog and LW Pop cards?  Does it gain the Lib card anyway?  And if it does lose the Prog and LW Pop cards, what happens if it's the only faction in the game with anyone from those ideologies (we did have one point in our game where there was exactly one RW Pop)?

I've had this in my game.  @ebrk85 is correct.

[Bushwa777]

So question I have been asked. Can a cabinet member resign?

I have heard arguments both ways

 

[EYates]

I suppose if they want to run for office then they should have to resign but I suppose that would be a more automatic thing.

[dkh64]

41 minutes ago, EYates said:

I suppose if they want to run for office then they should have to resign but I suppose that would be a more automatic thing.

So, I get that’s automatic if they win, but I thought I saw references in the rules to the Human/CPU player choosing to voluntarily resign to run for office OR just to make way for a different pol. I’ll have to quote rules when I’m not traveling.

[EYates]

10 hours ago, dkh64 said:

So, I get that’s automatic if they win, but I thought I saw references in the rules to the Human/CPU player choosing to voluntarily resign to run for office OR just to make way for a different pol. I’ll have to quote rules when I’m not traveling.

I suppose if you haven’t passed the Hatch Act then there is nothing to say you don’t have to resign.

[MrPotatoTed]

10 hours ago, EYates said:

I suppose if you haven’t passed the Hatch Act then there is nothing to say you don’t have to resign.

Ha, that's an interesting pitch we might consider one day.  But for now, I don't think we made that in-game distinction.

[Umbrella]

What happens if legislation is passed which reduces the number of Supreme Court justices?  Let's say it is reduced from 10 to 9.  Does this mean nothing happens until a justice dies/retires, and then he isn't replaced?  Or is someone removed from the bench?  And if so, how do we determine who is removed?

[dkh64]

51 minutes ago, Umbrella said:

What happens if legislation is passed which reduces the number of Supreme Court justices?  Let's say it is reduced from 10 to 9.  Does this mean nothing happens until a justice dies/retires, and then he isn't replaced?  Or is someone removed from the bench?  And if so, how do we determine who is removed?

My assumption is that if there are no vacancies on a 10 person court when that is passed then the next retirement just wouldn't be filled, no one would be forced off (unless it aligns with my political interest, then gtfo).

[DJBillyShakes]

41 minutes ago, dkh64 said:

My assumption is that if there are no vacancies on a 10 person court when that is passed then the next retirement just wouldn't be filled, no one would be forced off (unless it aligns with my political interest, then gtfo).

That's how it has worked IRL. Congress reduced the number of justices from 10 to 7 in 1866 and specified that no nominations would be made until the number of justices reduced to the correct number.

[ebrk85]

Yes I think that is how its supposed to work in game as well. Justices remain but wouldn't be replaced as they die/retire until we drop below the new number.

[Bushwa777]

So why cannot people run for Pres and Congress?  It was historical that they did.  James Garfield ran for Pres and House and was appointed to the Senate.  Lyndon Johnson ran for Pres and Senate at same time.  

[Willthescout7]

35 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

So why cannot people run for Pres and Congress?  It was historical that they did.  James Garfield ran for Pres and House and was appointed to the Senate.  Lyndon Johnson ran for Pres and Senate at same time.  

Because the game has all candidates entered for races at the same time. Yes, you do the races in Pres, Gov, Sen, Rep sequentially by hand, but the game has people enter candidates for all races at the same time. Without that rule, players could run a candidate for President, lose; then run for Gov, and lose; and run for Senate, and lose; and then run for Rep and win. That's unrealistic and broken. Also, allowing that makes entering in candidates for down ballot races inefficient and broken, as a candidate assigned to run in multiple races can prevent challengers according to the primary rules. In addition, being able to run for multiple offices at once is a state specific law, one that after discussion was felt to add to much complication to the core systems. 

If you go back into the fixes threads, you should see the full discussion. In the end, like I said, it was decided that it was best if all the candidates were entered at once and limited to one race.

[dkh64]

36 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

So why cannot people run for Pres and Congress?  It was historical that they did.  James Garfield ran for Pres and House and was appointed to the Senate.  Lyndon Johnson ran for Pres and Senate at same time.  

I think the laws have varied by state on that, I know VP candidates have run for Senate at the same time (LBJ, Bentsen, I think Delaware actually changed the law for Biden in 2008), New Jersey used to allow state officials to hold local office as well...

MY best assumption is that it was for ease and fairness. Not having a faction's strongest candidate running for multiple offices, add some risk in a player putting someone forward. I do, however, think losing a convention before the primary era shouldn't preclude a candidate running for something later but not a big loss if that never changes.