Ed Murphy wrote: >On majority party proposals, each player has a number of votes >equal to the size of eir party. > >On minority party proposals, each party (measured at start of >voting period) has one vote (members vote F>A -> FOR, F<A -> >AGAINST, F=A -> PRESENT).
I don't think much to the party concept, as it is currently defined, and these don't seem like sensible uses of it. >On cabinet proposals, each player has a number of votes equal >to the number of offices e holds. Officers already get more voting clout via green VCs. >On ecumenical (colonial?) proposals, each player has two votes >and each non-player who is a member of one or more protectorates >has one vote. This is more interesting. Major problem is that it relies on the protectorates' concept of playerhood, which until now has not been of significance to Agoran rules. Obvious scams via minting players. Limiting voting to first-class persons would fix much of it. -zefram
