vcczar Posted October 14, 2021 Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 Let me know how this sounds: @MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 and anyone else interested in this kind of thing: The number of committee member, excluding chairs, per house will determine the total number of proposals for that house. That means, as the country expands, both committees and proposals will expand. Proposers will be picked randomly. Those with a 5 in legislative ability will be 5x more likely to be selected than someone with 1 legislative ability. Those with 4 in legis ability will be 4x more likely to be selected than someone with 1. And so forth. That means, the higher the legislative ability the more likely the politician will be to propose something. A politician with "efficient", if selected randomly, will be allowed two proposals. A Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party. If this officer also has "iron fist," then they can select the proposers in their party, but at a 25% chance of gaining "unlikable" per each proposer switched. If the officer has 5 legis ability and "manipulative" and "magician," then they have a 25% chance of stealing a proposal from the other party and giving it to a member of their own party. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConservativeElector2 Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 33 minutes ago, vcczar said: Let me know how this sounds: @MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 and anyone else interested in this kind of thing: The number of committee member, excluding chairs, per house will determine the total number of proposals for that house. That means, as the country expands, both committees and proposals will expand. Proposers will be picked randomly. Those with a 5 in legislative ability will be 5x more likely to be selected than someone with 1 legislative ability. Those with 4 in legis ability will be 4x more likely to be selected than someone with 1. And so forth. That means, the higher the legislative ability the more likely the politician will be to propose something. A politician with "efficient", if selected randomly, will be allowed two proposals. A Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party. If this officer also has "iron fist," then they can select the proposers in their party, but at a 25% chance of gaining "unlikable" per each proposer switched. If the officer has 5 legis ability and "manipulative" and "magician," then they have a 25% chance of stealing a proposal from the other party and giving it to a member of their own party. I have got no objection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 I'm not sure I understand why we want to make it random. If we don't want to stick with the committee idea, maybe just rank them by legislative ability. Everyone with a 5 proposes first, then 4, then 3...and onward down the line until all proposal slots are filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 14, 2021 Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: I'm not sure I understand why we want to make it random. If we don't want to stick with the committee idea, maybe just rank them by legislative ability. Everyone with a 5 proposes first, then 4, then 3...and onward down the line until all proposal slots are filled. The party that dominates congress would have higher odds of boosting their legis abilities and could eventually monopolize the proposals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hestia Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: I'm not sure I understand why we want to make it random. If we don't want to stick with the committee idea, maybe just rank them by legislative ability. Everyone with a 5 proposes first, then 4, then 3...and onward down the line until all proposal slots are filled. I agree. I think it could make it almost needlessly difficult for our developer to make workable - plus it could be hard to define to people. We may need to try to make things a little more simple than we'd want for the sake of understandability. I haven't seen anything too bad that's unworkable right now. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 14, 2021 Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 @MrPotatoTed @Hestia The other issue with requiring 5 legis ability or higher to go first is that states dominated by one party will have the easiest time getting to 5 legis because they'll just be incumbent dominant and keep gaining Legis ability too. Ways around this could be: 1) My idea of the proposers being random but with higher odds of selection if higher legis ability. 2) Have a system in which those with 5 legis have a 50% chance of proposing. Roll all these first. If there are proposals left over, then all the 4 legis have a 40%. If there are proposals left 3's for 30% and so on. If some remain, then do the 5's again and so on. 3) Stay with the committee method as it currently is. 4) Some other method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 33 minutes ago, vcczar said: @MrPotatoTed @Hestia The other issue with requiring 5 legis ability or higher to go first is that states dominated by one party will have the easiest time getting to 5 legis because they'll just be incumbent dominant and keep gaining Legis ability too. Ways around this could be: 1) My idea of the proposers being random but with higher odds of selection if higher legis ability. 2) Have a system in which those with 5 legis have a 50% chance of proposing. Roll all these first. If there are proposals left over, then all the 4 legis have a 40%. If there are proposals left 3's for 30% and so on. If some remain, then do the 5's again and so on. 3) Stay with the committee method as it currently is. 4) Some other method. 1 and 2 both feel like they’re adding complications unnecessarily to me. Maybe I’m just not understanding the problem you’re trying to solve here? I don’t think one party will consistently have more 5 star Legis...things are pretty balanced so far (red is dominating right now, but looks like blue is about to unleash the kraken, and neither of them have a single 5 Legis yet). But if you’re still worried about it, I’d say stick with the current committee system. Unless of course you’ve had a problem with it that I haven’t noticed yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 14, 2021 Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: 1 and 2 both feel like they’re adding complications unnecessarily to me. Maybe I’m just not understanding the problem you’re trying to solve here? I don’t think one party will consistently have more 5 star Legis...things are pretty balanced so far (red is dominating right now, but looks like blue is about to unleash the kraken, and neither of them have a single 5 Legis yet). But if you’re still worried about it, I’d say stick with the current committee system. Unless of course you’ve had a problem with it that I haven’t noticed yet. No real issue. It was mainly trying to make it more realistic in that proposals can come from anyone, not just committee people. I'll just leave it as it currently is, but what do you think of this part: A Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party. If this officer also has "iron fist," then they can select the proposers in their party, but at a 25% chance of gaining "unlikable" per each proposer switched. If the officer has 5 legis ability and "manipulative" and "magician," then they have a 25% chance of stealing a proposal from the other party and giving it to a member of their own party. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 5 minutes ago, vcczar said: No real issue. It was mainly trying to make it more realistic in that proposals can come from anyone, not just committee people. I'll just leave it as it currently is, but what do you think of this part: A Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party. If this officer also has "iron fist," then they can select the proposers in their party, but at a 25% chance of gaining "unlikable" per each proposer switched. If the officer has 5 legis ability and "manipulative" and "magician," then they have a 25% chance of stealing a proposal from the other party and giving it to a member of their own party. Sounds good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 hour ago, vcczar said: No real issue. It was mainly trying to make it more realistic in that proposals can come from anyone, not just committee people. I'll just leave it as it currently is, but what do you think of this part: A Speaker, House Min Ldr, Sen Maj Ldr or Sen Min Ldr with 5 legislative ability and "manipulative" will have a 25% chance of changing a proposer within their own party. If this officer also has "iron fist," then they can select the proposers in their party, but at a 25% chance of gaining "unlikable" per each proposer switched. If the officer has 5 legis ability and "manipulative" and "magician," then they have a 25% chance of stealing a proposal from the other party and giving it to a member of their own party. At minimum, I think this addition makes sense. It would allow for more realism, especially as it gets closer to the modern era. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 15, 2021 Author Share Posted October 15, 2021 @MrPotatoTed @jvikings1 @Cal @ConservativeElector2 After another day of thinking about legislative proposals. One thing I liked about my idea is that it gives more value to having a high legis ability. I think what I could do is make some sort of requirement or rule that makes 5 legis a priority for both chairs and committee members. Currently, I think I require 4 for chair and 3 for committee? I forget what it is off the top of my head. But maybe it should be a 5 is selected until they are exhausted and then a 4. The chair has to have the highest legis power or be tied. Obviously the chair will be of the majority party too--so highest of his party. Any ideas? or thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 11 minutes ago, vcczar said: @MrPotatoTed @jvikings1 @Cal @ConservativeElector2 After another day of thinking about legislative proposals. One thing I liked about my idea is that it gives more value to having a high legis ability. I think what I could do is make some sort of requirement or rule that makes 5 legis a priority for both chairs and committee members. Currently, I think I require 4 for chair and 3 for committee? I forget what it is off the top of my head. But maybe it should be a 5 is selected until they are exhausted and then a 4. The chair has to have the highest legis power or be tied. Obviously the chair will be of the majority party too--so highest of his party. Any ideas? or thoughts on this? Right now, it’s a ladder. You need 1 Legis to be On a committee, 2 to be a chair, 3 to be a whip, 4 to be a maj/min leader, 5 to be speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 15, 2021 Author Share Posted October 15, 2021 13 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: Right now, it’s a ladder. You need 1 Legis to be On a committee, 2 to be a chair, 3 to be a whip, 4 to be a maj/min leader, 5 to be speaker. Ok. Hmm wonder if I should change this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 16 minutes ago, vcczar said: Ok. Hmm wonder if I should change this. I kind of like it, shows someone working their way up as they learn more. If you're going to change it, I'd only change the Senate because there's nothing special in theSenate for someone who is 5 legis. So House would stay... 1: elgible for being a Rep, committee member 2: Committe chair 3: Whip 4: Maj/Min Leader 5: Speaker But for Senate, could be: 1: Eligible to be a Senator 2: Committee member 3: Chair 4: Whip 5: Maj/Min Leader 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 22, 2021 Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 I’m considering allowing a chief justices to decline to hear a court case prompted by a governor. It will require special conditions for it to be possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 2 hours ago, vcczar said: I’m considering allowing a chief justices to decline to hear a court case prompted by a governor. It will require special conditions for it to be possible. You should look into the Rule of Four for Supreme Court cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 22, 2021 Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 9 minutes ago, Cal said: You should look into the Rule of Four for Supreme Court cases. Of course! thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 22, 2021 Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 @MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 and anyone else. The Rule of Four now applies. A Chief Justice, under most circumstances, can refuse a case brought by a state via Gov Actions, but the Rule of Four can override the Chief Justice. "Passive" Justices can't refuse cases. Also, a Chief Justice must have at least 4 ability to refuse a case. One with "Jurisprudence" (a kind of super ability for Justices) can refuse as many state cases as they wish. If a Chief Justice has "Iron Fist" then the Rule of Four doesn't occur. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 26, 2021 Author Share Posted October 26, 2021 I'm now adding ideology shift dates so politicians aren't using their initial ideologies in later start dates. About halfway done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 26, 2021 Author Share Posted October 26, 2021 Finished with adding ideology shift dates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 I'm pretty busy this week, and definitely will be Friday through Tuesday, but the next thing I'm going to do is figure out how to alter the traits, interests, and expertise to a numerical system. I'm also probably going to expand the abilities from 0-10, instead of 0-5. What I'll probably also allow is for anyone to run for any office, but someone with less than 5 in something is going to be downright terrible at it. There may be some other changes being made too. Obviously, if Anthony thinks such a change will delay things too much or whatever, I'll keep it as it is, but I think this will actually be a lot smoother for development too, as it will eliminate a lot of restrictions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConservativeElector2 Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 11 minutes ago, vcczar said: What I'll probably also allow is for anyone to run for any office, but someone with less than 5 in something is going to be downright terrible at it. That's a change, I'd support 100%. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted November 1, 2021 Author Share Posted November 1, 2021 There's a chance that meters could be simplified to where it is either mild, moderate, or strong trend--up or down. That's in my simplified rules. @MrPotatoTed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 10 hours ago, vcczar said: I'm pretty busy this week, and definitely will be Friday through Tuesday, but the next thing I'm going to do is figure out how to alter the traits, interests, and expertise to a numerical system. I'm also probably going to expand the abilities from 0-10, instead of 0-5. What I'll probably also allow is for anyone to run for any office, but someone with less than 5 in something is going to be downright terrible at it. There may be some other changes being made too. Obviously, if Anthony thinks such a change will delay things too much or whatever, I'll keep it as it is, but I think this will actually be a lot smoother for development too, as it will eliminate a lot of restrictions. I've always supported the idea that anyone can try anything -- it's just that most people would be really bad at most things. Excited to see this in action! One thing I've thought about it just how useful "obscure" could be, as a gatekeeper. Incumbents could run for re-election despite being obscure because they at least have localized name recognition...but for non-incumbents, an obscure person running against someone who is not obscure (or is an incumbent) would have only like a 20% chance of their campaign even registering in most people's minds. Of course, if the whole race for a certain office was just obscure candidates, then being obscure wouldn't be a penalty. Losing "obscure" should be a big freaking deal -- buzz is building up around your candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted November 1, 2021 Author Share Posted November 1, 2021 8 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said: I've always supported the idea that anyone can try anything -- it's just that most people would be really bad at most things. Excited to see this in action! One thing I've thought about it just how useful "obscure" could be, as a gatekeeper. Incumbents could run for re-election despite being obscure because they at least have localized name recognition...but for non-incumbents, an obscure person running against someone who is not obscure (or is an incumbent) would have only like a 20% chance of their campaign even registering in most people's minds. Of course, if the whole race for a certain office was just obscure candidates, then being obscure wouldn't be a penalty. Losing "obscure" should be a big freaking deal -- buzz is building up around your candidate. Good points. I’ll consider that for sure. Need major events to create household names. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.