New Game: 12/06/13

[Robin_C]

I'm going away on Saturday, for ages. If this happens to me, I won't even come back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-3cFIuQBc

Obviously, you guys can do what you like as regards the game while I'm off, but it seems pretty pointless with two.

I'd like to restart when I'm back, now that we've had a bit of a play. We've learnt a lot; and i think the main thing we've learnt is that the mechanics are a bit broken with only 3 players.

Thus I propose that we seek out extra players over the next few weeks; even if we each bring one friend, that would make for a great game. And it's good to meet new people.

The other thing I've been considering is the idea of dynasties - i think there are some rules we have developed that we should keep:
- the Invoker not being the Judge
- 48hrs to debate / vote

We should just stick these in the starting rules

What do you think?

[michaelenstone]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps we should also modify the rules WRT to all players needing to vote etc. As we've seen once a proposal has enough votes to pass all the other players would just vote against. I would suggest removing the rule giving dissenters 10 points each.

[Neil]

We've got 48 hours for debate, but no limit on vote - we should add the 24 hours Robin proposed.

I don't see the function of 10 points for dissenting. Most of the other rules make immediate sense. Perhaps it's a metaphor for the political capital which can be earned by dissenting from majority politics? (including the effect: although you get press, a lot of people might think you're a right Farage). Happy to remove it, although we're making the points dynamics even more simplistic, which might dumb the game down more.

Another approach is to force 'alphabetical voting' - but this would probably slow it down too much.

Ideal would be an automated 'closed ballot' system which publishes results when the specified number of votes have been cast. I'm speculating that such a thing exists. Google it? There was a solution for the dice roller...

[Robin_C]

You could send one digit to each of the other players. Once all players have done this, we put the pairs together. If it divides by 3, then it's a yes vote, otherwise a no vote.

[Neil]

I think this is a clever idea but too administrative, having had a look, I also think an online ballot system (they do exist) for every vote is similarly ott. I actually think the most appropriate solution is proposer votes first, others send votes over private message to the proposer, proposer publishes after 24 hours.

[Sponsored content]