1868: The Gilded Age Playtest

[pman]

 

Conver- Force former plantation owners to buy back their confiscated plantations -deals with revenue 

 

[ebrk85]

35 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

With that we have reached the limit of bills that do not deal with crisis. 

Hi, just wanted to clarify as the wording on the meter sheet isn't really clear. He is the actual rules regarding spending bills.

 Any bill that has a chance of increasing the budget is considered a “Spending Bill” for whenever that term comes up. The meters will determine if players are restricted on “Spending Bills.” If too many “Spending Bills” are proposed, then the first “Spending Bills” proposed will have the first chance to be the “Spending Bill(s)” to be passed. If the restriction is met, then any other proposed “Spending Bills” for that half-term are automatically stripped from consideration. “Spending Bills” that deal with an on-going crisis will not be restricted. 

So if you are restricted to 8 non-crisis bills this means you can not pass more then 8 bills marked in column O as "Yes". If it is deals with the rev/bud crisis as shown in Col BA then it doesn't count toward the limit of 8 spending bills.

If more then 8 non-crisis spending bills are proposed that's ok but if more then 8 pass then only the first 8 proposed will actually move forward.

[Bushwa777]

16 minutes ago, pman said:

 

Conver- Force former plantation owners to buy back their confiscated plantations -deals with revenue 

 

Sumner already is doing this one 

[Bushwa777]

10 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Hi, just wanted to clarify as the wording on the meter sheet isn't really clear. He is the actual rules regarding spending bills.

 Any bill that has a chance of increasing the budget is considered a “Spending Bill” for whenever that term comes up. The meters will determine if players are restricted on “Spending Bills.” If too many “Spending Bills” are proposed, then the first “Spending Bills” proposed will have the first chance to be the “Spending Bill(s)” to be passed. If the restriction is met, then any other proposed “Spending Bills” for that half-term are automatically stripped from consideration. “Spending Bills” that deal with an on-going crisis will not be restricted. 

So if you are restricted to 8 non-crisis bills this means you can not pass more then 8 bills marked in column O as "Yes". If it is deals with the rev/bud crisis as shown in Col BA then it doesn't count toward the limit of 8 spending bills.

If more then 8 non-crisis spending bills are proposed that's ok but if more then 8 pass then only the first 8 proposed will actually move forward.

Ok per yoda i mean eric the ones left to propose can propose what they want but as he said only the first 8 that dont deal with the crisis will be allowed as they pass

[pman]

He'll propose- Retire outdated Weaponry, tactics, training, military technology, and military officers deals with revenue crisis 

[Bushwa777]

4 minutes ago, pman said:

He'll propose- Retire outdated Weaponry, tactics, training, military technology, and military officers deals with revenue crisis 

Why not have the guy you have left which is whitley propose a law instead of conver?

[pman]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

Why not have the guy you have left which is whitley propose a law instead of conver?

That's who I thought was proposing it, sorry should have been specific 

[ebrk85]

14 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Ok per yoda i mean eric the ones left to propose can propose what they want but as he said only the first 8 that dont deal with the crisis will be allowed as they pass

Ok sorry I wasn't clear and I was off in my explanation anyway.  We don't have a Rev/Bud crisis so Column BA doesn't matter. But we are overbudget which restricts how many spending bills you can pass. The only meter in a crisis right now is Quality of Life.

So you are allowed to pass 8 spending bills total (marked YES in column O). However, if the bill helps the Quality of Life meter (marked YES in column BJ) then that particular bill does not count toward your limit of 8 spending bills.

I hope that makes more sense.

[Bushwa777]

4 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Ok sorry I wasn't clear and I was off in my explanation anyway.  We don't have a Rev/Bud crisis so Column BA doesn't matter. But we are overbudget which restricts how many spending bills you can pass. The only meter in a crisis right now is Quality of Life.

So you are allowed to pass 8 spending bills total (marked YES in column O). However, if the bill helps the Quality of Life meter (marked YES in column BJ) then that particular bill does not count toward your limit of 8 spending bills.

I hope that makes more sense.

Except we are in a spending crisis per the meters as well

[ebrk85]

2 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Except we are in a spending crisis per the meters as well

Over spending yes but not in a crisis. Rev/Bud meter is considered in a crisis at level 1 and 2. You currently sit at level 3.

[Imperator Taco Cat]

2 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Except we are in a spending crisis per the meters as well

We are at 3, 2 or less is crisis according to sheet.

[Bushwa777]

Yes, only 8 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises 

That is taken from the sheet under spending bill restrictions 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Bushwa777

[Imperator Taco Cat]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

Yes, only 8 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

That is taken from the sheet 

That's part of the Spending Bill Restrictions row, right below crisis.

[Bushwa777]

4 minutes ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

That's part of the Spending Bill Restrictions row, right below crisis.

So that means you can only have 8 spending bills

[Imperator Taco Cat]

3 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

So that means you can only have 8 spending bills

Correct, except if they help a crisis (Quality of Life).

Edited May 28, 2023 by Imperator Taco Cat
Wording

[Blockmon]

9 hours ago, Bushwa777 said:

Congress in Session:

Ok the President does not wish to interfere with the process at this time.  

Again only 8 non-crisis bills allowed this term as we are overspending. Also remember no income tax bills until an income tax amendment is passed and that will not happen until Progressive Age at least. 

The following people are allowed to pick laws to be proposed: 

In the House: Speaker James G. Blaine @Blockmon, Congressman Fernando Wood @EYates, Congressman William B. Allison @pmanrw, Congressman Heister Clymer@Imperator Taco Cat, Congressman Richard H. Whitley @pmanmod, Congressman John H. Ketcham @pmanmod, Congressman Simon Conver @pmanrw, Congressman George W. McCray @Joe303300

In the Senate: Senator Charles Sumner @Joe303300, Senator Joseph Roswell Hawley @pmanmod, President Pro Temp Charles D Drake @Umbrella, Senator Henry B. Anthony @pmanrw, Frederick A. Sawyer @Blockmon, Senator John A. Logan @Bloot911, Senator Logan H. Roots @Blockmon, Senator John J. Ingalls @Umbrella

 

Proposers can only propose bills that don’t cost points to one of their faction’s cards or which aligns with their personal ideology, personal interests, or expertise. The only exceptions are if a bill helps with an ongoing crisis or helps the ability of the military during war time. 

I will do the two rolls for Joe.  Proposals are due by Noon Sunday. 

James G. Blaine (2 bills due to 5 legi) --->  Ban Child Labor in Industries with High Injury Rate,  Open Indian Territory up to White Settlement
Frederick A. Sawyer ---> Ban Criminals from Immigrating
Logan H. Roots --->  Washington Statehood

also due will use Blaine's ability to change a Red proposer to a random member of Congress in my faction.
George W. McCray will be the one I pick.

[Bushwa777]

2 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

James G. Blaine (2 bills due to 5 legi) --->  Ban Child Labor in Industries with High Injury Rate,  Open Indian Territory up to White Settlement
Frederick A. Sawyer ---> Ban Criminals from Immigrating
Logan H. Roots --->  Washington Statehood

also due will use Blaine's ability to change a Red proposer to a random member of Congress in my faction.
George W. McCray will be the one I pick.

George McCray was already picked 

[Blockmon]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

George McCray was already picked 

I meant that I will change that red proposer to someone random in congress of my faction or did that already happen?

Edited May 28, 2023 by Blockmon

[Bushwa777]

Just now, Blockmon said:

I meant that I will change that red proposer to someone random in congress or did that already happen?

I am not sure what you mean.  I pulled McCray in the picks and he belongs to Joe not Blockman 

[Blockmon]

1 minute ago, Bushwa777 said:

I am not sure what you mean.  I pulled McCray in the picks and he belongs to Joe not Blockman 

I was meaning this rule :
a Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen 22Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party to a random member of their party in their house of Congress.

[Bushwa777]

3 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

I was meaning this rule :
a Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen 22Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party to a random member of their party in their house of Congress.

Oh I see well let me put the rules down and then I will do the roll 

[Bushwa777]

19 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

I was meaning this rule :
a Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen 22Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party to a random member of their party in their house of Congress.

Fails 34/25 

[EYates]

Can we actually propose making people buy 5ish plantations back as I thought we had already given them over to African Americans. Surely you should not be able to do both?

[Bushwa777]

4 hours ago, EYates said:

Can we actually propose making people buy 5ish plantations back as I thought we had already given them over to African Americans. Surely you should not be able to do both?

We sold them to poor whites for cheap.  I am willing to take that law and delete it and do another as it seems to run counter to other law. What do you all think?

[EYates]

2 hours ago, Bushwa777 said:

We sold them to poor whites for cheap.  I am willing to take that law and delete it and do another as it seems to run counter to other law. What do you all think?

I would argue as we already sold sold them that a different law be proposed