Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Some interesting thing with Star Trek Discovery
Today at 3:23 am by ZeroCool

» StarCraft 2: Redux
Yesterday at 5:41 pm by theshadowcouncil

» Turn 5-1069
Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:30 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Babylon 5: The Fall of Centauri Prime (S5:E19) ~ On the End of Londo Mollari and the Symmetry of Mister Morden
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:20 am by Arsene Lupin

» Turn 4-1069
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:30 pm by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Potential Future Loreruns
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:26 am by WKC690

» Your Top 3 Themes of each Final Fantasy?
Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:28 am by Alianger

» Lorewalkers' Top 5: JRPGs
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:27 am by Alianger

» Turn 3-1069
Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:21 am by FreelanceZero

You are not connected. Please login or register

Rules of Procedure for the Council of Governors

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

The parallel system has issues. What do you do about counter-proposals? What do you do about laws which are tied together, but are different laws? Where do you discuss an issue not an actual law proposition?

View user profile
Our system is intended to protect the minority voice and allow them to be heard. Ejecting an observer will not change the majority's case on a bill, but it can allow the minority voice to be heard and not shouted down.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:The parallel system has issues. What do you do about counter-proposals? What do you do about laws which are tied together, but are different laws? Where do you discuss an issue not an actual law proposition?

There is no need to complicate this more than is necessary.

Each issue has it's own topic. That way we can see at a glance what the issue is about. non laws will be stated so in the topic. This is because when we are arguing on a single bill in a single session we quickly bury everyone's comments



Last edited by Governor Gollvieg on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
What if an observer is the voice of the minority? Say a Mayor of Shikokushin becomes an observer to represent the Japanese in, say, 5 years? It's better to deal with this on a case-by-case basis, so each observer's conditions are discussed separately.

To Gollvieg:
and how will this per-issue thread be moderated?

View user profile
But how will that case to case requirement be established?

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:What if an observer is the voice of the minority? Say a Mayor of Shikokushin becomes an observer to represent the Japanese in, say, 5 years? It's better to deal with this on a case-by-case basis, so each observer's conditions are discussed separately.
Then it's up to the foreman to decide whether the power is being abused.

View user profile
When a guy comes and says: "hey, I wanna be observer because of X", we debate it and then say, okay, you can be an observer, with these conditions. In those conditions, the exact expulsion specification have to be stated.

The entire observer issue really is a minor one. I know, you're sore from that *** that just happened, but what's more important is the issue of paralelism X serialism.

(also, think of Foreman as the "mod" of sorts, so he has the power to stop arguments if they get out of hand)



Last edited by Felix Clary zu Osegg on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:35 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
That's understandable.

View user profile
I assumed observers were short-term expert witness type deals. If they are intended as non-voting partial members that are supposed to observe the chamber for the long-term my suggestion isn't appropriate.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I assumed observers were short-term expert witness type deals. If they are intended as non-voting partial members that are supposed to observe the chamber for the long-term my suggestion isn't appropriate.

Well, they can be just that. It all depends on what exactly is in their Observer Writ, really.

(but again, minor issue)

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:To Gollvieg:
and how will this per-issue thread be moderated?

We treat each topic as it's own session and moderate it like so

View user profile
Paralelism has 3 drawbacks for me:

1) it completely erases another level of gameplay and doesn't, IMO, bring enough advantages
2) it removes urgency and pressure from lawmaking
3) it will be hard to moderate, and hard to separate - who can create such threads? Where one topic ends and another one begins? If my school act is interwoven with my military bill, so much they don't work on their own, do I make two threads? Or one? And if one, will military AND school bills discussed there? Who will moderate those threads (each essentially having the same workload as a single serial thread, so 2 parallel discussions = twice the mod work)

In a serial setting, agenda is known for 36 hours. This must be enough for an active player to see it, to read bills proposed, and to prepare his own suggestions, and to try work it around his schedule (or try to find alternative time that's better for people).
If there isn't enough people voting two times (both with 2 hour voting periods), voting will be during the next session. So you have another at least 36 hours to prepare.

You don't have to be a no-lifer to be able to do that much. To be here once per three days, if we allow voting by proxy.

View user profile
OOC: The Game is already complex enough without us simulating procedure and sessions and protocol. That is not fun. I don't care about the law making side, it makes no sense why we have to subject ourselves to this when we are not legal experts. Hell the Senate don't subject this to themselves and it is their job. Can we please keep it to a simple, straight, normal vote?

View user profile
It's because it's not our job that we need these rules.

View user profile
Gollvieg, most of the bill that Felix proposed is about organization. There is nothing that limits us, it allows us to work in a more efficient pace. Combine it with Lore's multi-thread ultimatum and we should be able to effectivly discuss and argue without too much chaos.

View user profile
Governor Gollvieg wrote:OOC: The Game is already complex enough without us simulating procedure and sessions and protocol. That is not fun. I don't care about the law making side, it makes no sense why we have to subject ourselves to this when we are not legal experts. Hell the Senate don't subject this to themselves and it is their job. Can we please keep it to a simple, straight, normal vote?

Yeah, the Senate did not subject itself to some foolish rules. Look where that got them. Sure, inactivity was the major issue, but so was lack of focus and coherence in discussion of issues.

I get that you don't think it's fun. I get that you're not that interested in that part of the game, but it is necessary, it is realistic, and it is fun (I know that's my subjective feeling, but you presented yours as plain fact, so why the hell shouldn't I do the same?).

You're probably right none of us are legal experts or lawyers, but does that mean we should just forget rules of conduct? If I remember correctly, you were (or are) in the military. Did it have rules?
Of course that's your job, right. Not really comparable with something people do for fun, right? But every human interaction is structured on some rule-set. This game has rules.
Why does it have rules? I don't get it, you know. Why should I care about some stats and stuff, that's too complex simulating a nation and personal power like that. That is not fun.

Except that's precisely what makes it fun. Rules force creativity. They force invention, looking for the unorthodox, thinking about strategy etc. etc.

This first part was harsh, but no harsher than your post IMO.

Now for the real debate - because we need some internal rules, otherwise what happened with the conscription debate would keep occurring again and again (just to refresh your memory: repetitive arguments naturally with increasing hostility, disagreements over what is the proper protocol, tied vote; and I merely skimmed most of it).

That debate is parallelism X serialism. Whether we discuss one matter at a time, or every matter at once.
I will present an argument for my solution, which is serial, as I cannot properly advocate for the parallel option.

Main advantage of my proposal is that it front-loads workload. What I mean by that is that the Foreman sets the agenda for a session, and people have 36 hours or even more to prepare. They can write amendments, counter-proposals, they can form coalitions for or against a particular act (or even just for a specific amendment), they can make political trades, and all that before the session even starts, meaning they can actually have a strategy, or set of goals, it means that people aren't purely reactionary, that they don't just react to things "as they come".
This incentive for cooperation is also good since we're all good at different things. You can feel like the proposal needs an amendment, but don't really know how to phrase it - well, first you have 36 hours to try and do so, or you can find someone who can help you with that. Or you can say, this thing doesn't interest me, this thing doesn't, but this item on the agenda is important to me - and you can focus on that.
Another positive is moderation of the proceedings. One of the main problems is that often, discussion ends up being like this:
Accurate Council Discussion Portrayal wrote:Proponent: "I think A"
Opponent: "I think B"
Proponent: "B iz dumbz cuz A"
Opponent: "No, A is really really bad because B"
Proponent: "I don't agree because (slightly rephrased A)"
Opponent: *pouty face*
I did that as well. We all did, because that's just human nature. What's bad is that this leads to irritation ("Does he not get A?!") which leads to aggressiveness ("But A!!! A!!! A!!!"), rinse and repeat and you get the last few pages of the Council proceedings.
In my proposal, the Foreman has the power to just stop discussion on a part of the issue. He can go and say "Alright, A and B has been debated, that's done, no new information is being conveyed. Let's move to D and E".
With several debates going on at once, this is 1) not practical, and 2) really, really hard for the moderator, with each issue putting more and more workload on him.
As for the point 1), that has more complicated explanation, and I'll spare you of that. If it really is the linchpin of your decision, I will, but so far I have faith in my other arguments.

View user profile
IC: Mr. Gollvieg pours through the proposal for the bill. He pauses for a moment, collecting his thoughts before saying, "It is an unwritten law in engineering that the more complex a design is, the more points of failure it is susceptible to. Take the Mighty German Tiger Tank, on paper it is a masterpiece of engineering. Countless high quality parts work in concert to pull off the highest level of performance but they quickly found out that all this complexity created a tank that can only operate in one theater of war optimally and made it impossible to maintain for long periods to time as a single component machined perfectly to fit perfectly into place like a puzzle piece into a jigsaw puzzle became more difficult to replace as only one single factory in the world had the capability to produce such components. As a result the Mighty Tiger with it's high performance quickly became out matched by Allied Tanks which in many cases were merely slabs of steel welded together. What the Germans thought was the perfect tank became their downfall as they were unable to keep up with production demands in parts, raw resources, and manpower to maintain complex systems.

Thus, I will apply to the engineering principle of Keep It Short and Simple. Just because a problem is complex does not mean that we should find a complex solution to it. I thank you Mr. Felix for you efforts and time invested in creating this bill and for your service to Echain as a whole. I wish you luck in this venture. For this Issue I will have to cast the vote nay and there is no room for anyone to sway me from this stance.

View user profile
I too do believe that these rules are far too complex for only 9 Governors and the rules should be short and too the point. I agree with the purpose of the foreman and I like the idea of observers but I believe it gets far too complex when we talk about 36 hour waiting times and the different types of sessions like themes. Therefore I must vote Nay.

I am open to convincing however in it's current state I cant vote Aye.

View user profile
Propose a simple solution then. Give me a way not to have several types of items which may be on an agenda. Give me a simple way to moderate discussion. Give me a simple way of giving people some time to prepare.

Please re-engineer this PzKpfw VI into a simple T-34.

As it stands, I vote against the SPCG. I frankly just want to see someone else try (and, most likely, then criticise the hell out of any flaws I find, this time without even attempting to find a way around them). Or hell, even arguing in circles without rules as we did will be entertaining.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:Propose a simple solution then. Give me a way not to have several types of items which may be on an agenda. Give me a simple way to moderate discussion. Give me a simple way of giving people some time to prepare.

Please re-engineer this PzKpfw VI into a simple T-34.

As it stands, I vote against the SPCG. I frankly just want to see someone else try (and, most likely, then criticise the hell out of any flaws I find, this time without even attempting to find a way around them). Or hell, even arguing in circles without rules as we did will be entertaining.


There is no need to be bitter about something like this. I would simply keep the foreman and observers but get rid of the session types, increase voting times and reduce the amount of time notice we have so we can get more done.

View user profile
I vote for every other proposal, including the option not to have rules at all. In fact, I wish to vote for every proposed law from here on out and focus only on Eastport, so as to not disrupt the Council with such notably "not fun" and really terrible, terrible activities like, I don't know, meking complex rules for complex situations (what insanity!) or putting forth long and argumentated proposals (are you crazy?!) or any of this sort.
I realise I'm the problem and I'm just spoiling everyone's fun by these "rules" and "acts".

View user profile
I don't particularly agree with the tone Governor Clary has taken, but I do agree with the sentiment. We must put in the effort now to think of the complex solutions to complex problems, so that when a complex issue arises later it becomes simple. If we put in the effort now, it will be rewarded many times over when we reach the chamber floor. I would implore all of you to return to this bill and start looking for points of commonality as a starting point, what do you like about this bill? We will move onto its issues after that. Agreed?

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I don't particularly agree with the tone Governor Clary has taken, but I do agree with the sentiment. We must put in the effort now to think of the complex solutions to complex problems, so that when a complex issue arises later it becomes simple. If we put in the effort now, it will be rewarded many times over when we reach the chamber floor. I would implore all of you to return to this bill and start looking for points of commonality as a starting point, what do you like about this bill? We will move onto its issues after that. Agreed?

As I have stated I particularly like the idea of a foreman which will keep order and stop a debate from going out of control and the idea of observers.

View user profile
I too am heavily in favour on the ideas of a foreman and observers as part of the govermental workings.

View user profile
Just so you understand what I'm doing: I am not extorting anyone. I don't want to force anyone to vote for my proposal because otherwise I'd be hurt. In fact, I discourage everyone interested in voting for my bill. It's not fun, so it breaks Rule 0.

You see, I know I'm crazy and a bit immature in many ways, and I guess I just didn't consider fun-ness enough. I even believed that it was fun to make an intricate set of rules with little handwaving and need for retconning or bugfixing, but obviously Gollvieg's right, this is just not fun and it cannot be fun and I'm just a fool for considering it to be fun.

Instead, I found what is fun. What is fun is to read 3 pages, around 1.000 words and 5.000 characters (exluding spaces), and say "nah, that's too unfun and complex, boo!". What's fun is to know that someone is writing a set of rules, knowing that someone is a detailist, and knowing this someone in fact invited everyone to collaborate on that set of rules, to know all that for about 72 hours, and participating by writing "nah, unfun, thumbs down, who wants to deal with this?!" when this person gets tired of waiting for others to chime in, and writes the rule-set alone.

(the only input I got was about a typo, from bradley or whiskers, I think)

As I said previously, I'm deeply remorseful for my shameful transgression against Rule 0. I strongly urge all of you to disregard my proposal, in fact, my last proposal is the "Nah Act" which goes as follows: "Every act longer than 10 words is too complex and unfun and thus is null and void". I mean, who needs that pesky constitution, right? Or the other laws, just terrible, boring, not fun at all.
I will refrain from proposing further acts or offering my opinion on proposals of others. I am fully cognisant that I'm deeply mentally ill, and my perverse fetish for complexity is like antimatter for fun and enjoyment.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum