| Author | Thread: The Senate | Page 1 | 2 |
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10713 Posted: Aug 24, 2008, 5:12 pm |
The Senate is now live.
Sovereign Magistrates from clans may present new referendums to the senate, which are then voted on by all players in Muelsfell. Only one referendum per magistrate may be presented at a time.
Newspaper articles are created throughout the voting process.
Voting is not limited to clans, but it is clan-based.
There are three types of votes: Yay (in favour), Nay (against), and No Confidence (a vote to strike the referendum down).
Votes from individuals are grouped with other members of their clan (or with all clanless magi if the voter is not in a clan). If a majority of a single clan votes Yay for a referendum, then the clan is to have voted Yay for a referendum. Works the same with the No and No Confidence votes.
Depending on the votes of its members, a clan may be for or against a referendum. Each clan that votes in favour of a referendum adds the total level of its Headquarters as its total vote. Clanless votes are counted as if 'Clanless' was a clan itself, with an imaginary Headquarters level dependent on the total number of clanless voters.
Thus there are two levels where players may "influence" the vote: They can encourage their own clan members to vote one particular way, and they can encourage other clans/clanless to vote a particular way. Threats, bribes, or just general warm fuzzy friendliness are acceptable methods of "influence."
Voting on a referendum lasts for one week (real life time), then the referendum closes and the results figured up and applied that night.
There are three types of referendums: Mandates, Writs of Attainder, and Subsidiaries. Every referendum must have a "target clan" that the result will be levied against. A clan may only be "targeted" by one referendum at a time.
Mandates are for roleplaying purposes only. They have no effect on the game except to show up in the senate history. The "target clan" in this case is typically ignored.
Writs of Attainder are penalties. The first time a clan is subject to this, they are given a penalty of 100k each of the primary resources and money, which they'll have to pay before they regain access to major clan activities. The second time a clan is subject to this, they receive a penalty AND their headquarters level is reduced by one level. If a clan is reduced to a zero headquarters level, it is disbanded.
Subsidiaries are bonuses. Clans receive 50k worth of each primary resources/money and 1k each of secondary resources (except adamantine).
All referendums must pass by a majority vote.
Yes! The writs of attainder sound very scary, but I expect that sort of referendum to be difficult to pass since it will involve an agreement from a majority of actively voting players at least twice (once to give a penalty, and once to give a penalty plus HQ drop).
And yes! Subsidiaries sound like "free resources," but again these should be difficult to pass since it involves an agreement from a majority of players.
I will be monitoring the results of these, and if it looks like a particular clan is unfairly getting shafted, or getting too many subsidiaries, I'll step in and take measures to correct things. For now, let's see how this plays out. :)
Enjoy, and as always report bugs and problems.
Kep
PS -Please remember that the political terms are not 100% accurate. They're used as they are to give a proper "legal feel" to the system while approximating purpose. You can assume the Muelsfell legal system is radically different from the ones in our world. ;) |
|
| Denerid Posts: 279
Location: Rildesjan
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #10717 Posted: Aug 24, 2008, 5:28 pm |
Doesn't this system mean that single-member clans are vastly over-represented in voting power?
EDIT: Realized most of my questions were answered, I just skimmed it the first time. My bad.
Last Edited: Aug 24, 2008, 5:29 pm |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #10721 Posted: Aug 24, 2008, 5:39 pm |
Perhaps as a fix to single-member clans being overrepresented forcing a clan to have 3-5 or more members, or be counted as part of the clanless vote?
I'd also like a clan to be able to be targetted by maybe one referrendum of each type per week, to prevent a group that knows they are going to be targetted from hiding behind a Mandate of their own devising. I also think it would be a good idea to allow a clan to post one game-effecting referrendum, either a subsidiary of writ of attainder, and a Mandate. That would allow the world to progress without damaging the clan's ability to possibly accomplish something. |
|
| Yamikuronue Posts: 1288
Location: Mottonsborough
Magus Age: 122 years old
| Message #10722 Posted: Aug 24, 2008, 5:45 pm |
| I'd prefer unlimited mandates, one game-based motion per week. There's nothing game-breaking about mandates, after all. |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #10739 Posted: Aug 25, 2008, 12:14 am |
And now that we have something to vote on, I recommend a new feature, the ability to change your vote. Let us say you see a new referendum and vote on it swiftly, say 5 days before it ends, then you talk to some guys, hear other arguments, and realize, 'oh wait, maybe that wasn't such a good idea' and want to change your vote. As it stands now you are stuck voting in a way you disagree with, and that's just particularly fun.
Addendum:
Why does No Confidence count as an abstention, it seems more like a no vote with a 'what a stupid idea, please don't post any more referendums' rider. I'd recommend a new seperate button for abstaining, and possibly a penalty for voting No Confidence too often, or on a bill that gets >75% Yes, so that people don't use No Confidence in place of No unless it is deserved.Last Edited: Aug 25, 2008, 12:18 am |
|
| CommComms Posts: 392
Location: Daylsfeld
Magus Age: 127 years old
| Message #10747 Posted: Aug 25, 2008, 5:02 am |
Two things I'd like to note:
1. No Confidence probably oughta count as a "no" vote also, so if there were for example: 50 votes in favor, 45 votes against, and 10 No Confidence votes the measure wouldn't get passed. Maybe this already is the case, but if not, seems like it should be.
2. It'd be pretty easy for any player to quickly make a 1-person clan and to make their vote count more than it would otherwise. OTAKU could just propose a bunch of subsidiaries for themselves, then have 40 of their members drop out, form 1-person clans, vote, then rejoin OTAKU. Any clan could do this, just using the largest one as an example. As a solution: only clans that have been in existence for longer than 1 week count as individual clan votes, otherwise votes of their members just count as "clanless."
I think there already is an "abstain" button. It's the "go back" button on your browser. If you're not 100% sure of which way you want to vote, then don't vote and just wait! If people were allowed to change their vote then the current results would have to be removed, and I like seeing those. |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #10751 Posted: Aug 25, 2008, 11:05 am |
Well yes, of course you can abstain personally by failing to vote, but what if you feel your clan should choose not to vote on a matter of particular delicacy? At the moment it seems like all you'd be able to do is send a clan-wide message and hope that everyone listens, and hasn't already thrown a vote onto the board.
Why would we need to get rid of the Current Results to allow a vote change? It says at the bottom of the screen that it is a prediction, consider it a poll, based on what Magi have said they will do, and have the actual vote be at the exact moment the timer hits zero. |
|
| CommComms Posts: 392
Location: Daylsfeld
Magus Age: 127 years old
| Message #10768 Posted: Aug 25, 2008, 3:45 pm |
I thought it only showed the current results after you had voted, but it turns out that you can see them before voting, so nevermind on that.
If the majority of your clan thinks you should abstain then figure it out on your clan forum and just equalize the yes and no votes before the timer counts down. |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10811 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 4:16 pm |
I think it's unlikely that a large clan is going to splinter temporarily just to pass a referendum with dummy clans. It'd be something of a hassle to have to restock your golems with clan items when returning to the original clan, nevermind the 24 hour disbanding timer before they could rejoin their original clan. It's certainly a possibility, and I overlooked it because I have some restrictions on "vanity clans" consisting of only one member in the works.
If it happens meanwhile, it could be cause to swing the banhammer. :)
Incidently, a single multi shouldn't be able to do this, due to the multi-checks for joining/forming new clans. They can do it if every single multi is a premium. If someone is really THAT determined to pass a referendum, I'll just put in a button that says "Pay Kep $50 for 10 extra votes on this referendum." Kidding of course, but monetarily it doesn't make much sense to do (and relying on the free prem trial would mean a lot of effort to add any meaningful number of votes).
A possible tweak is to use a multiplier (1.5x, 2x, 3x, etc) of the headquarters level as the weighted vote, or to count the total number of members in the clan as the vote's weight (regardless of individual votes). While both may discourage splitting into small clans to vote, they also mean that a large clan (either in HQ levels or membership) could dominate the senate.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have clans make politically driven choices in their voting: do we vote against the big clan in this referendum, or do we try and curry their favour by voting with them so we can get support when our referendum is up for vote?
Maybe the simplest thing to do would be to put in a min membership requirement. If you don't have X members in your clan, your vote counts as being part of the "No Clan" subset. Hmmm.
To prevent people from making RP mandates to stop others from targeting their clan, I could just remove the ability to target your own clan. This could also make for a fun dynamic. "Psst, hey Clan B, set us up with a subsidiary and our Clan A will vote for your referendum." And yes, I'm aware a dummy clan could get around this, too. I'll ponder some more adjustments.
Kep |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #10815 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 4:55 pm |
What? Banhammer? The provision to approve testing is passing. Doesn't that give us free reign to try whatever we want?
By the way, 24 hour disbanding thing is meaningless with open clans. Set it to disband, join an open clan, leave it, then rejoin your own. If you noticed I was back in ToMU in a couple hours, going through a pair of test clans. |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10816 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 5:04 pm |
| Sconibulus said:By the way, 24 hour disbanding thing is meaningless with open clans. Set it to disband, join an open clan, leave it, then rejoin your own. If you noticed I was back in ToMU in a couple hours, going through a pair of test clans.
Apparently a bug, which should be fixed as of now.
Kep |
|
| Denerid Posts: 279
Location: Rildesjan
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #10828 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 10:03 pm |
| Arkham said:
A possible tweak is to use a multiplier (1.5x, 2x, 3x, etc) of the headquarters level as the weighted vote, or to count the total number of members in the clan as the vote's weight (regardless of individual votes). While both may discourage splitting into small clans to vote, they also mean that a large clan (either in HQ levels or membership) could dominate the senate.
For example, your own clan's vote in the Cabalist Immunity bill?
:P |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10830 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 10:26 pm |
Sorry, I should have mentioned this to be clear, but I for some reason assumed everyone already knew: AGOMC is a test clan, with a name so that it fits within the game world. Admin clans won't take part in any referendum. The current referendum is just for demonstration purposes. :)
Kep |
|
| FatherCoyne Posts: 332
Location: Mallow
Magus Age: 123 years old
Real Name: Kevin Coyne
Email: KCoyne@umail.ucsb.edu
| Message #10833 Posted: Aug 26, 2008, 11:15 pm |
Not even if we slip you a $50, Kep? :P
Anyway, I was thinking maybe the timer on these is a bit long? I'm imagining a time when we would really be pumping motions through the floor... Perhaps a single in game month? 112 hours for voting? We don't have much of a weekly player base, so I don't think we would miss more than a vote by tightening the time limit. |
|
| Yamikuronue Posts: 1288
Location: Mottonsborough
Magus Age: 122 years old
| Message #10835 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 12:49 am |
| I think I'll be ordered to go commit seppuku for saying this, but I agree with Coyne. A week is way too long in this fast-paced game. |
|
NanashiPosts: 1115 Location: Asylum Magus Age: 126 years old Clan: OTAKU | Message #10839 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 2:13 am |
Fast paced? O_o
I don't think you will be ordered to commit seppuku...but then I am not in TOMU. Just in case, what do you want on your Tombstone? |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #10840 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 2:17 am |
| Eh, it's a fairly fast-paced game. you can reduce a foeman's wall and golem to rubble in a matter of minutes, and need to sing on at least a couple of times a day to use your motivation, I think. I wouldn't object to a shorter amount of time for a senate cycle. |
|
| Denerid Posts: 279
Location: Rildesjan
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #10841 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 2:22 am |
| She won't be ordered to commit seppuku, just rather strongly encouraged. But it's either going to be that or do something else to clean up her honor. |
|
| Yamikuronue Posts: 1288
Location: Mottonsborough
Magus Age: 122 years old
| Message #10842 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 2:31 am |
| U_U nuuu, don't make me clean up Sconi's desk again! It took me a month to grow my eyebrows back! |
|
| Endovior Posts: 172
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #10857 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 4:57 am |
| Given that the jobbing cycle is 12 hours, most active players should be active on at least a daily basis, if not more. Three days should be plenty. |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10874 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 3:11 pm |
There are a couple of reasons for such a long voting period.
One is obviously to ensure everyone has an opportunity to vote on a current referendum. While it may be optimum to log in once a day for the job, there are many more folks who are casual players and only log in every few days.
Another is to make sure a single clan can't slam another clan with multiple subsidiaries or writs in a relatively short period of time, especially the writs.
Let's leave the time as-is for now and see how it works out. :)
Kep |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10877 Posted: Aug 27, 2008, 3:53 pm |
Couple of tweaks are in:
* One person clans now have their votes counted as "No Clan," with an appropriate warning that this is in place before you vote.
Presenting a new referendum is currently unaffected; single person clans can present them as normal. I'm still pondering if I'll restrict this or not to prevent abuse.
* You can no longer target your own clan (nor admin clans -- apparently there was no check for that, oops).
Kep |
|
| Endovior Posts: 172
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #10903 Posted: Aug 28, 2008, 6:13 am |
| Perhaps an increase to the number of simultaneous proposals, then, with the caveat that you can't have more then one active proposal affecting the same clan at the same time? Last Edited: Aug 28, 2008, 6:15 am |
|
| Yamikuronue Posts: 1288
Location: Mottonsborough
Magus Age: 122 years old
| Message #10966 Posted: Aug 29, 2008, 2:14 pm |
| Arkham said:
Let's leave the time as-is for now and see how it works out. :)
Kep
How it seems to be working out is that nobody is participating; my clan's trying to work out what referandum to propose because we have several we want to do, but by next week, the entire political landscape of the game may (probably will) have changed, so we feel like we only get one shot in the near future. |
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 130 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #10969 Posted: Aug 29, 2008, 2:37 pm |
Yeah, I've noticed only ~100 votes at the moment, which is rather low given the active player population.
I'd encourage everyone to try a mandate first, since that has no major repercussions, as a way to try it out. I'm pondering allowing multiple referendums based on... some aspect of the clan HQ, maybe. Not sure yet.
Also I extended the time on my own test referendum by one day because I realized it was going to end while I was out of town. Sorry about that.
Kep |
|
| |
| Page 1 | Last |
