Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

Latest topics
» Dead Valley
Today at 3:17 am by Crensler

» Turn 6-1068
Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:45 pm by wolfking2k

» Turn 5-1068
Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:15 am by Spartanmario

» Warlords II: Introduction/General Discussion
Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:43 am by Crensler

» Possible Plot of Metroid Prime 4
Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:26 pm by Frieza2000

» Turn 4-1068
Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:52 pm by Spartanmario

» The Dregs of Korn
Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:46 pm by SilverDragonRed

» September 30: Underale
Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:50 pm by Frieza2000

» Turn 3-1068
Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:21 pm by Crensler

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 3 of 4]

OOC: I can say as another mentally unwell individual who doesn't have the skill to be as detail oriented, that it's been fun for me, if a little daunting trying to keep up.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:OOC: I can say as another mentally unwell individual who doesn't have the skill to be as detail oriented, that it's been fun for me, if a little daunting trying to keep up.


OOC: Yeah I don't have any problem with large bills at all, they add to the Lore and makes a "political game" more legitimate by outlining exactly what will happen.

View user profile
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:OOC: I can say as another mentally unwell individual who doesn't have the skill to be as detail oriented, that it's been fun for me, if a little daunting trying to keep up.


OOC: Yeah I don't have any problem with large bills at all, they add to the Lore and makes a "political game" more legitimate by outlining exactly what will happen.

OOC: I have no problem with large bills, my only issue is that the bill is trying to be both OOC and IC at the same time. I really enjoy it when we were arguing about what makes us tick and all the things our characters believe in. I do not like mixing OOC and IC and I get extremely triggered when we are literally voting to vote. No seriously this is not a joke, I quit a well paying job because all they did every week was voting to vote to vote and doing meetings to plan for the meeting to plan for a meeting.

View user profile
I mean, it's not as if the current system is working. It's not as if some guy announced he's suspending a debate/vote which was stuck at 4 votes for and 3 votes against, and that if noone else votes after the suspension, the act passes (without majority), thus essentially forming some basic rules.

Oh wait, didn't that just happen?

As for mixing OOC and IC, yeah, not good. But look at the constitution. It is both IC and OOC thing, but was written completely as IC. Look at how that turned out.
Also, if you look at the act, it really is 99% OOC, it's just that those rules exist IC probably in a different form (because internet forum =/= national assembly) and that they're self-imposed by a group of players, also maintained by them, and not by the GM.

Voting how to vote, haha, politicz is dumb, haha.
I get that doing it all the time is really annoying. But first, we're setting up the rules in a game which is basically just beginning again. And we tried doing it without rules - which you weren't that happy with, considering you then tried to create rules out of thin air.
Desiding procedure, setting up the system is extremely important. It shouldn't be done week in week out, like many corporations do, but the fact you consider something annoying does not mean it's just "not fun", nor does it mean it doesn't need to be done.

View user profile
And I really would underline that if we want to avoid votes on how to vote, making sure we do it one last time sounds a hell of a lot better than attempting to scum fuck each other with ad-hoc rules made on the spot every week.

View user profile
Gollvieg, essentially what Felix is trying to do is setting the basis on how to play the game. It's not because this is politics, but due to the previous inefficiencies in the process that you call "fun". I personally have no problem with Felix's proposal because it isnt that complicated. If anything, I believe it is quite simple. Everything written down makes sense and will, hopefully, work and allow us to be organized.

View user profile
Look I am perfectly fine with the bill and would happily vote for it, my main concern was that Gollvieg did not find it fun and I would feel wrong going ahead with something like this if an active player who has to participate under these rules would not find it fun.

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:Gollvieg, essentially what Felix is trying to do is setting the basis on how to play the game.  It's not because this is politics, but due to the previous inefficiencies in the process that you call "fun".  I personally have no problem with Felix's proposal because it isnt that complicated. If anything, I believe it is quite simple.  Everything written down makes sense and will, hopefully, work and allow us to be organized.

OOC: I understand, the primary problem lies in OOC, IC. IC, Mr. Gollvieg has no incentive to make the central government strong, in fact it is much more desireable that everyone is at each other's throats because it is much easier to gauge someone who throws their entire emotion into a dispute. OOC, I do not agree that we should use IC bills to manage OOC actions. If you want to add an OOC rule, we can call the GM, present our perspective view and he will lay down the law.

Also, on the 36 hours thing, I thought that it was established on the rule stream that there would be time limit of 36 hours per Issue but since Lore dI'd not post that in the video I have to assume that ruke was either not implemented or he changed his mind or I misheard, Thus I apologize for that.

View user profile
This bill doesn't make the central government strong, it just makes it so that it is bareable to discuss.

I can't change your views, but I truly believe that this bill is the best way to organize our system. It isnt complicated and states everything in a manner that can be dealt with effectivly.

View user profile
I think if we make these rules with OOC-overlap ourselves, with ourselves being able to change them, it makes sense. In lore, there would have been a document similar to this one. Say, one party wants to change it so it's better for them - they can change the OOC-overlap rules, which represent the in-lore rules.

The 36 hour thing, I believe, was mentioned on the stream because it was part of my proposition for rule-change, and if I remember correctly, Lore said he isn't in favour of putting strict time limits into OOC gameplay rules.

(and yes, the SPCG also uses 36 hours, but not per-issue, but per-agenda/session)

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:This bill doesn't make the central government strong, it just makes it so that it is bareable to discuss.  

I can't change your views, but I truly believe that this bill is the best way to organize our system.  It isnt complicated and states everything in a manner that can be dealt with effectivly.

OOC: Which Mr. Gollvieg does not want to happen. He has no interest in creating a forum where all the Regions can move together as a concert group. It will Homogenize the Nation and allow other Regions to interfere with each other. (Yes, he is a secret Regionalist pretending to be Moderate)

If you want to change the OOC rules, let's call Lorerunner. Present our idea and if God likes it, he will implemention it.



Last edited by Governor Gollvieg on Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
While I think these rules should be subject to change by the Council, I see that at this point inviting Lorerunner to opine on the matter is sensible.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:While I think these rules should be subject to change by the Council, I see that at this point inviting Lorerunner to opine on the matter is sensible.


Yeah I think asking Lore is the best option.

View user profile
*raises an eyebrow*


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/
The Lorerunner wrote:*raises an eyebrow*

Sorry, about this. I got confused when Karbin proposed a bill that is both IC and OOC. So here is the situation:

We would like to add to the rules the following:

1) We vote for a Foreman of the Council and he regulates when things get too far in game and he is responsible for handling requests and propose the bills to be voted on. (This is universally agreed upon to be a good thing.)

2) Karbin wants to create a 36 hour grace period before the proposal of each bill in order to give the other players time to prepare and argument. (While I understand where he is coming from, I think that having this grace period takes up too much time of which we do not have enough since we are moving at 4x)

3) Karbin wants us to focus on one issue at a time until it is resolved. (I think that this might take up too much time as there are issues which some players would be interested in and others that they don't so they do not show up for a few days until it is resolved. I am in favor of working on different bills on different topics at the same time.

4) Karbin would like to establish a 2 hour IRL voting period and we keep on voting until we get a 5/9 majority (I think we should increase the period to 36 hours and rule that those who do not vote within the time limit will default to abstain.)

Did I get anything wrong Karbin?

View user profile
Yes, you did Gollvieg.

If I try to summarise:

- An item (act, appointment, or a 'theme') is proposed by a relevant party
- the Foreman compiles an agenda - a set of couple items which will be discussed during the next session
- the Session starts at least 36 hours after the agenda is announced
- during the session, multiple items are dealt with, but one at a time
- voting goes like this: first, 2 hours for votes, quorum of 5 (meaning at least 5 Governors must vote). If quorum is not reached or it's a tie, voting is moved and becomes the last item on the agenda. If even then it fails, votes are erased (unless Governor explicitely says their vote is permanent) and the voting is moved to the beginning of the next session, when, regardless of number of Governors who voted, the bill will either be passed or rejected.

For arguments in favour of this approach, I'll just re-post:

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
So essentially what the problem they're trying to get to is whether we should attempt to deal with OOC rules with IC legislation. Gollvieg doesn't like it, because even though he himself is amenable to some of the solutions, he'd rather his character didn't have to feel forced into making a decision that makes the game better.

Karbin does, because it's of interest to him and it's enjoyable to tinker with systems, and given this is a political game, should involve some level of this, even if we're not experts. And given we need these rules and we have a space to discuss rules, we may as well use it.

How do you feel Lore?

e:My apologies if I got your motivations or feelings incorrect guys.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:So essentially what the problem they're trying to get to is whether we should attempt to deal with OOC rules with IC legislation. Gollvieg doesn't like it, because even though he himself is amenable to some of the solutions, he'd rather his character didn't have to feel forced into making a decision that makes the game better.

Karbin does, because it's of interest to him and it's enjoyable to tinker with systems, and given this is a political game, should involve some level of this, even if we're not experts. And given we need these rules and we have a space to discuss rules, we may as well use it.

How do you feel Lore?

e:My apologies if I got your motivations or feelings incorrect guys.

No sweat. My primary issue with the way the bill is presented is that letting us do OOC rule change by vote is that it takes the GM out of the picture, he is God, he has final say in the rule set. My secondary issue is that we do not need to drastically increase the complexity of the Council system especially when it throws the game balance completely toward players that post multiple times a day and track it 24/7

A lot of us choose to stay out of the Senate game for a reason. We had a 100% attrition rate with the Senate system, and we had a 20% drop out with the CoG, along with more than 4 players not showing up anymore. We need to make the game more fun and easy to grasp for new players as possible.

View user profile
I must admit I only jumped into this discussion and have tried to keep up, but having these issues listed, I think while I appreciate Karbin's plans, I find myself agreeing with most of Gollveig's complains. Although it seems that most of these are mostly of a time-scheduling nature, which shouldn't be too hard to find a compromise in.

As someone who only visits the game a couple times a day, I'm not really looking forward to having to spend time record keeping, knowing which item is discusses at what time and in what (tiny!) timeslot we are supposed to vote. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for some organization, but I would prefer it too be a bit more simple. For exampl; 24h deliberations/preperation, 36h discussion, 24h voting. As long as the acts are properly time-stamped, things should be moving automatically and the Foreman can spend more time moderating.

View user profile
I've been debating this off and on since whenever it was first posted. Let me address things in what I believe to be in order of importance.

Karbin: Being passive aggressive and complainy is acceptable... in character. Don't let it bleed to out of character. You are formally warned.

Gollvieg: I completely get your complaints but they are also a reality (as we've even discussed before) of having politics at all. At this point we have gameplay that doesn't involve being part of senatorial issues and having the availability and/or commitment, and those are there for a reason.

To probably no one's surprise I think I'm more willing to go with a little bit of compromise here. I like Karbin's overall approach, and tend to lean towards agreeing with his intended solution, with one major change; extending the 'voting' period to 12 hours instead of 2. The reality of time zones alone makes me insist on this change. I do have one other small idea.

I actually thought about having a vote not conclude until the end of a Turn on Monday. The function of this idea would go like this; An item is proposed, thread is created, 36 hours are given for bargaining and preparation, at the terminus of the 36 hours any possible additions and amendments are put in, a summary is put forward (by the Foreman or by me) and then a vote is called for... and that vote is tabulated at the end of the Turn. The purpose here is that those wishing to be active in crafting bills and dealing with issues can and do in an organized fashion, but those who wish to 'have a vote' (and the trading and politicking that swaying their vote entails) but not be part of the 'crafting of the bill' can still participate by having that availability to vote for the remainder of the week.

As an aside, I'm going to be directly tying Influence in to how much tax and/or tariff money a Governor generates once I finalize the formula. More details to come.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/
Rather than editing the previous post I'm just going to add this here as a summary:

My designed compromise is to essentially use Karbin's proposed idea in drafting, editing, amending, adding to, and otherwise crafting laws and arguing issues, but allow votes to drag on to the end of the week after a summary is put forth.

This is not official yet though, I'd like feedback before I implement such an idea.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/
Would be debate one proposal at a time, or several simultaneously? Also, what about things which need to be decided before the end of a turn (executive action, legislation which is tied to other proposal, and cannot be proposed before the initial act passed)?

View user profile
Granted I hit the floor running this morning (and haven't had breakfast yet) but unless I'm missing something, with the 36 hour grace period people would have plenty of time to debate their issues across each issue's separate thread with ease. So I suppose several simultaneously?

Things that need to be decided before the end of the Turn is an interesting concept. Again, I'm an idiot, but from my perspective I don't think that'll be a huge issue once we're a few Turns in, since right now everyone is establishing initial laws, but further into the game people won't be doing many dovetail laws. As for emergency situations, well, as weird as it sounds I'm not sure those need to be resolved immediately either. If it's an emergency military or intelligence situation, those players can and do deal with those pretty much on the fly thanks to the chat box.

Can you give examples so I have an idea of where you're coming from on both?


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/
My system, if we add voting until Sat or Sun, would probably have to change some timescales to work as intended.
I believe in a system where items (acts, appointments, executive action) is discussed one at a time, for several reasons.
1) easier to moderate one thread instead of 3
2) less transfer of animosity (you're against me with bill A, so I'll be against you with bill B); people will have a bit of time to calm down after one discussion is over
3) it allows for session system.

If we just discuss things separately and at the same time, session system kinda loses its raison d'etre. This is only relevant, if session system is a positive, so I'll argue for that.
Sessions simply allow players to strategise more. As it is now, and as it would be with a free parallel system (multiple acts discussed at once), the system strongly favours tactics, and is notably reactionary - the only strategic action you can take is to make another proposal.

With sessions, you can prepare more, you know what will be on the table, you can trade more - perhaps person A proposes a bill A you like, and you could leverage your support for person A's support of your bill.
Now this really only works properly if both are awaiting discussion at the same time. Because say bill B is proposed on Tuesday, person A says "I don't like it", then person A proposes bill A on Wednesday, and... does person B propose a trade of support? Why? I mean, A already said he doesn't like it. And even if person A proposes the trade and B accepts, what then? Does A turn on a dime? He could, but especially given how twitchy and paranoid we all are, this would have serious negative ramifications for both A and B.
If A and B both know about each other's proposals before they're up for debate, they can secretly communicate, gauge each other's temperature, discuss trades and strategy (good example of strategy is Whiskey's flip on the Constitution, where he at first said he was for the Socialist one, and then flipped; this was his strategy from the start, to weaken the camp of socialist constitution).

Now for my behaviour. It wasn't passive aggressive, at least I didn't intend it to be. It was outright aggressive. I'll try to explain why I did it, and how I feel about it, especially so I won't do it again.
There are only a couple things that I can't stand. "This is not fun." - that sort of thing is one of them.
That statement, as I see it and as I feel about it discounts any other experience. It is an absolute, and it dismisses my opinion and my experience and my feeling as something unnatural, shameful, wrong. Stuff like this happens to me often, and often with actual malicious intent, even more often to silence me in a debate. (to be clear, I don't think Gollvieg wrote it maliciously; I do not, however, believe that it wasn't at least partially directed at me)
Look, I know I'm weird. I think weird, I feel weird, I dress weird, I talk weird, ... and I know that. But I'm still human and my opinion and my feeling and my experience is just as valid and real as any other. "This is not fun" is, for me, an attack on my humanity. Obviously I did have, and in this form I still do, problems with how I feel about myself, and yes, for a time I did genuinely feel like a sub-human monster and that isn't fun.
Today, I do have self confidence, and I am even proud, but that doesn't erase my memories of that time. And for me, to let anyone try to put me back there, which is exactly what "This is not fun" is to me, is unacceptable and must be answered.
What I did was wrong and ugly and shitty. I know that. I know that the fact it was a retaliatory response does not somehow make it okay; I don't believe that revenge is morally good. In these terms, I honestly apologise, but I am not apologetic about what I did; if I was in a similar situation again, I would do the same.
So, please, if you're speaking OOC, refrain from such absolute statements. It's not that hard to write "That's not fun for me".

EDIT: also, I did follow up on Gollvieg's post which ticked me of with to-the-point argumentation. Which was answered by KISS, without actual, you know, suggestions on the matter, or really any argument adressing my concerns, or anything else than KISS. That sent me "over the edge", as it was further aggravation.

View user profile
I find myself agreeing with several of Karbin's points. I still strongly think we should let voting occur across the week, but haven't seen anyone else's thoughts on this compromise.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

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

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