The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
But you're forgetting... THIS IS NOT THE PLANETARY COUNCIL!
What we are discussing are out of character matters about when turns are submitted. This affects EVERYBODY, not just faction leaders.
Comrade Corellion, Secretary of Science and Social Engineering for the Human Hive in the Alpha Centauri Police State Game (ACPSG).
Function Corelli Omega-9, Internal Affairs Function (Terms 110, 101, 100, 011, and 010) and Advisor on Foreign Affairs (Term 001) for the Cybernetic Consciousness in the Alpha Centauri Democracy Team Game (ACDTG).
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one.
I'm kind of surprised no one has yet mentioned the ideal compromise solution. (At least I think so: I haven't read every word in this thread.) That solution would be that for some general '"world-constitutional' rule to pass, for example time limits, there has to be a majority, both in head-votes as in faction-votes. In other words, 50% or 66% of the votes in a single-vote poll should be in favour, but also three of the five factions. That way we keep the "one man - one vote" principle, but three small factions can always veto a rule if it's not in their advantage.
and this thread is about how we make decisions that affect the game.
It arose because of the timing poll , true but is separate. Personally I think people are getting unneccessarily rule-bound over that something that has not seemed to really be a big issue yet.
and Corellion, why ever get out of character. I roleplay some discussions and not others but in all of them I am a pirate captain considering what is best and fair for my faction.
and as an aside, turnaround time does not effect every individual member equally. Some are checking the forums regularly and others disappear for weeks at a time. But any rule does impact each faction equally since the rule affects the faction even if the individual member disappears.
Also I don't propose giving anything to faction LEADERS. The voting power belongs to a faction and how the individual factions choose to decide things is up to them.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Maniac
I'm kind of surprised no one has yet mentioned the ideal compromise solution. (At least I think so: I haven't read every word in this thread.) That solution would be that for some general '"world-constitutional' rule to pass, for example time limits, there has to be a majority, both in head-votes as in faction-votes. In other words, 50% or 66% of the votes in a single-vote poll should be in favour, but also three of the five factions. That way we keep the "one man - one vote" principle, but three small factions can always veto a rule if it's not in their advantage.
Johndmuller proposed something similar but no one really addressed it. he proposed that if two factions objected to a rule/ proposal then and only then would it be sent for a factional vote with majority winning. I think he was trying to avoid 2 votes unless the matter was contentious.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
When the United States or Britain or ANYBODY takes a position at the UNited Nations or whatever. They take the position on behalf of the nation despite any internal divisions.
And do you know WHY that is? Because getting a huge poll would just be TOO DARN INEFFICENT.
Imagine trying to poll with 6 Billion people in it. And then......"Well, I don't like the results so....RECOUNT!!!!". Not that the UN is known for it's efficency.
But here, we don't have a billion, or a million, or a thousand, or or even one hundred people. We *CAN* take a direct vote, because thats democratic.
In game fairness terms, it is hardly democratic or fair to accept a decision that 51% of the people want when it could be opposed by the majority of the factions that have to live with it.
"Hardly democratic"? Do you even know what democracy is? A democracy (a direct democracy, actually) is where the people vote and if 50.1+ percent of them agree on something....It goes into effect
And which would be better for the DG? FACTIONS having to live with what the PEOPLE say, or PEOPLE having to live with what the FACTIONS say?
Wheres the inconvenience ??
I dunno.....Every TV program or whatnot is listed in Moscow time?
ON a rules issue you could have the position of the factions just as quickly, if not more quickly than the time needed for a general vote.
You could have the position of the factions, but not the people. It's easy for the FACTIONS to decide, but they still may not get a 50.1+ percent vote.
I asked the question for the very reason that there could be issues arise where there are factional interests involved. My method wouuld be no slower than a general vote-- it would be the same only the factions would vote
Yes, however theres one "small" difference......even if the majority of the factions agree, the majority of the people may DISAGREE
If this is a democracy game then people should act in the same fashion as they would in the real democracies. My example of the Canadian senate
Canada....Real democracy
There isn't a real democracy on Earth. You do realize this, correct? Were all REPUBLICS....Some are DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS, but no demoracies
If I were roleplaying, would you expect a nation of sea-captains to submit to a world council that allowed them anything less than an equal voice at the table.
And they would have an equal voice......Each of them would be equal to 1 vote. However.....If I were role playing, would you expect a nation of communists to submit to a world council that allowed them LESS than an equal voice at the table. People you do know that the larger the faction, the smaller the voices of the individual people of the faction (in the 1 nation-1 vote option)
I don't see that the game has been shaken up or what is proposed is so inconvenient. Factional voting could be quicker and the game would ooperate more like the real world politics we are trying to emulate as part of the game.
Nononono, you don't seem to understand. Were not trying to emulate real-world politics......Real world politics is complex, messy, and not fun. (Well, it's fun to study. Bah). Were trying to have a low-level political discussion.
I don't think anything should pass that the majority of nations oppose.
But you see...the majority of nations would not oppose it The majority of the PEOPLE of those nations would accept it.
I noticed that the poll results thus far narrowly support one nation- one vote. Just curious as to when you plan to close the poll . . . Also as a proponent of the one person -one vote system, would you accept the delegation of power to the nation-states if that were the final result ?
They will come around I plan on closing it on the thirteenth, which allows this poll 2 more days.
I'm kind of surprised no one has yet mentioned the ideal compromise solution. (At least I think so: I haven't read every word in this thread.) That solution would be that for some general '"world-constitutional' rule to pass, for example time limits, there has to be a majority, both in head-votes as in faction-votes. In other words, 50% or 66% of the votes in a single-vote poll should be in favour, but also three of the five factions. That way we keep the "one man - one vote" principle, but three small factions can always veto a rule if it's not in their advantage.
I thought that the fun of this game ( outside your own faction) would be through the interplay of the factions out here. There is precious little to be decided out here anyway so I thought a few factional fights could liven it up. Otherwise polls are just a bunch of boring individuals deciding stuff. You must admit that the Pirate led counter-debate has at least livened up this part of the forum.
As for pure democracy, I agree that it has never existed and I did not realize that this game was an exercise in that type of " utopia". I was going for an earthlike UN type council ( absent the vetos . . . well one veto for googlie). Perhaps I should have said " as close to democracy as earth has come". Your form of democracy totally ignores the political sub-units on Planet which makes little sense given that they are in conflict by the very nature of this game.
----------------------------------------------
Arrr more polls! these Hive folks sure like them polls. Well I got cannons to swab and powder and shot to replenish . . . No time fer polls-- Sur some of 'em ask the same thing and say they are "official"
Official by who I wonders- the only folks I answers to is the brotherhood o' sea captains and God Almighty as personified by googlie.
We had to make some little pollster feller walk the plank. Heck he wanted to know what the womenfolk and the cabin boys thought !! Everone knows the womenfork is fer lovin' and fetchin the Xenorum. same wit the cabin boys . . . and de all listen to der cap'n or they gets keelhauled or tied to the yardarm.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Maniac
I'm kind of surprised no one has yet mentioned the ideal compromise solution. (At least I think so: I haven't read every word in this thread.) That solution would be that for some general '"world-constitutional' rule to pass, for example time limits, there has to be a majority, both in head-votes as in faction-votes. In other words, 50% or 66% of the votes in a single-vote poll should be in favour, but also three of the five factions. That way we keep the "one man - one vote" principle, but three small factions can always veto a rule if it's not in their advantage.
I kind of suggested in the same line:
Originally posted by HongHu
Ok, how about this. Each decision has to pass two test, one on one person on vote basis, one on one faction one vote basis, just like the House and Senete here in the US.
But got hammered by Captain Flubber.
Be good, and if at first you don't succeed, perhaps failure will be back in fashion soon. -- teh Spamski
Arrr more polls! these Hive folks sure like them polls. Well I got cannons to swab and powder and shot to replenish . . . No time fer polls-- Sur some of 'em ask the same thing and say they are "official"
Pirates! Always grunting and not doing the work. Demand something and when you give it to them they say they don't like it. What can you do about them pirates ...
Ah so citizens from both the Pirates and the Hive were more or less proposing the same thing but they were ignoring or shooting down each other proposal!
Now that this misunderstanding is solved, can all parties shake hands and be friends again?
On the other side... better let the Pirates and Hive fight each other. That'll make our Cyborg goal of world domination much easier!
there were some differences in the proposals as I recall them
1. HongHu proposed 2 votes on everything. This meets the concerns of the small factions but could lead to deadlock and who wants that. If an issue needs a decision there should be a way to reach it. I could not support this due to the possibility of deadlock.
2. Johndmuller proposed that people can vote all they want on things but if TWO factions register an objection to a proposal/result, then it goes to the factions and their votes will decide. No deadlock possibility and people vote most of the time.
I still think that straight factional voting is more fun with more possibilities for roleplaying. This argument has already largely been pirates ( those individualist, socially stratified anarchists) against the Hive ( collectivist egalitarians subjegated to the state)
The Pirates will likely choose to ignore anything any worldly council can impose. We are pirates after all
WE are bound only by the ocean breeze and the word of Googliegod.
Everything else is just fun and games . . . so pass the xenorum
Time for the party
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
I thought that the Hive (and the Consciousness too for that matter) were all about communalism and submerging the individual for the good of the collective - why would their people even have their own opinions, let alone want to express them - did someone forget to tell them?
Originally posted by johndmuller
I thought that the Hive (and the Consciousness too for that matter) were all about communalism and submerging the individual for the good of the collective - why would their people even have their own opinions, let alone want to express them - did someone forget to tell them?
Article 46Clause 1Subsection 1 of the 2109 Hive Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of expression to each and every Hive citizen.
You can only curse me to eternal damnation for so long!
And then......"Well, I don't like the results so....RECOUNT!!!!". Not that the UN is known for it's efficency.
Do you even know what democracy is? A democracy (a direct democracy, actually) is where the people vote and if 50.1+ percent of them agree on something....It goes into effect 
better let the Pirates and Hive fight each other. That'll make our Cyborg goal of world domination much easier!
with more possibilities for roleplaying. This argument has already largely been pirates ( those individualist, socially stratified anarchists) against the Hive ( collectivist egalitarians subjegated to the state)
Tweet
Comment