On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Taral wrote:
> On 12/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It also removes the rationale of win by voting power, since a player
>> can at most exert full control over only a single party. Which I
>> think is a good thing.
>
> Partnerships get around this.
I'm thinki
On 12/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also removes the rationale of win by voting power, since a player
> can at most exert full control over only a single party. Which I
> think is a good thing.
Partnerships get around this.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if
root wrote:
The downside is that it would make win by voting
power more complicated, not less.
Proto-generalization:
Upon a correct announcement that a player has Excessive Clout,
that player wins the game.
A player has Excessive Clout if and only if a proposal with
Goethe wrote:
I have the following in mind, before I go further, reactions? Enough
interest?
Proto-proto: Parliament
Worth a shot.
On Dec 17, 2007 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each player has a IVPOP (Internal Voting Power on OPs). Players
> vote FOR or AGAINST proposals in the public forum, as currently.
> If the majority of IVPOPs in a party are FOR a proposal, that party
> vote
I've always been interested in hierarchical voting structures, but we've
only sometimes had good ones going here. Past ones were "sort of" parties
by giving extra votes to voluntary associations (Groups, Partnerships).
But those weren't truly hierarchical as long as individual voting powers
were
6 matches
Mail list logo
