Tweet
There are a number of polls about voting powers, googlies powers and rulemaking. All of them fundamentally come back to a question as to the nature of how this game will be played. Is it:
1. a democracy style PBEM where the game will be won and lost on Chiron through the normal in-game mechanics and diplomacy -- any voting and "rule-making" out here are just in fun and are limited as anything that impacts game fairness is unenforceable
2. A democracy PBEM which will be mainly determined by the in game mechanics and diplomacy but which can be impacted by some fun roleplaying out here in the general forum. For example, if the Chiron equivalent of the Kyoto accord were passed, each faction would be required to reduce their ecodamage. Everything would be of general application and if it hurts one faction more than another, thats just a reality of decisions by world bodies
3. A democracy Pbem where the will of the majority rules in ALL matters and the in-computer part of the game could be majorly and severely impacted by majority decisions in this forum. The power of the majority is absolute and they have no obligation to be fair to anyone ; If the majority decides that a faction must self-destruct a base or even a bunch of bases, they must do so, even if all the members of that faction are opposed.
Note that I have purposely chosen an extreme example #3 as I want to get a sense of how far the right of the majority to decide things actually goes in most people's mind. The example could be less severe . . . i.e. could the majority decide that the UNI only must pay a 10 ec fine to each other faction for some infraction? I suspect that the vast majority out there are saying " silly Flubber . . . of course the majority can't impose anything that impacts actual gameplay"
I suspect that's the case because accepting a googlie veto on majority decisions seems to be winning. But other than that indication, many posts on the subject have stressed the rights of majority rule in determining how this game procedes and have never mentioned any limits on that majority right. I'm sure that most people would say that limitations were " implicit" or " understood" but I just want to be sure people are thinking the same way.
I didn't post a poll since I just want to see how others view the game. I mentioned three possible conceptions of how the game works but feel free to write a different (likely better ) description.
Oh and example one is how I see the game. The underlying Smax PBEM will be a played fairly . Decisions out here can be made but nobody has to do anything that impacts on game balance. Like the UNited nations, theis general forum is powerless to force any sovereign nation to do anything.
How do you see the game? Sorry to harp on this but I have never played a demo game before and I believe many others have never played a PBEM .
1. a democracy style PBEM where the game will be won and lost on Chiron through the normal in-game mechanics and diplomacy -- any voting and "rule-making" out here are just in fun and are limited as anything that impacts game fairness is unenforceable
2. A democracy PBEM which will be mainly determined by the in game mechanics and diplomacy but which can be impacted by some fun roleplaying out here in the general forum. For example, if the Chiron equivalent of the Kyoto accord were passed, each faction would be required to reduce their ecodamage. Everything would be of general application and if it hurts one faction more than another, thats just a reality of decisions by world bodies
3. A democracy Pbem where the will of the majority rules in ALL matters and the in-computer part of the game could be majorly and severely impacted by majority decisions in this forum. The power of the majority is absolute and they have no obligation to be fair to anyone ; If the majority decides that a faction must self-destruct a base or even a bunch of bases, they must do so, even if all the members of that faction are opposed.
Note that I have purposely chosen an extreme example #3 as I want to get a sense of how far the right of the majority to decide things actually goes in most people's mind. The example could be less severe . . . i.e. could the majority decide that the UNI only must pay a 10 ec fine to each other faction for some infraction? I suspect that the vast majority out there are saying " silly Flubber . . . of course the majority can't impose anything that impacts actual gameplay"
I suspect that's the case because accepting a googlie veto on majority decisions seems to be winning. But other than that indication, many posts on the subject have stressed the rights of majority rule in determining how this game procedes and have never mentioned any limits on that majority right. I'm sure that most people would say that limitations were " implicit" or " understood" but I just want to be sure people are thinking the same way.
I didn't post a poll since I just want to see how others view the game. I mentioned three possible conceptions of how the game works but feel free to write a different (likely better ) description.
Oh and example one is how I see the game. The underlying Smax PBEM will be a played fairly . Decisions out here can be made but nobody has to do anything that impacts on game balance. Like the UNited nations, theis general forum is powerless to force any sovereign nation to do anything.
How do you see the game? Sorry to harp on this but I have never played a demo game before and I believe many others have never played a PBEM .
Comment