←
→
orichalcum: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

Just for the record...

posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 01:26pm on 13/02/2007 under
who all reading this is terrified that we're going to go to war with Iran by the end of March?

Also, for the Rome game:
I'm thinking of introducing a rule to model the veto power over laws possessed by the 10 tribunes of the plebs. My plan is to give each faction 1 tribune, each of whom can veto a law or candidate once. You can veto a veto, but that uses up your veto as well. Hopefully, this should provide for canny strategizing and not silliness? (In actual history, the tribunes could veto as often as they wanted, but this seems likely to lead to disaster.)
Mood:: afraid
Music:: silence
location: Evanston
←
→
There are 7 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] greenelephant.livejournal.com at 07:35pm on 13/02/2007
But will they get to depose tribunes, too? :-P (sorry, I've just been teaching the scandalous history of Ti. Gracchus). What period is your Rome game set in?
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] orichalcum.livejournal.com at 07:36pm on 13/02/2007
73-44 BC. Possibly, yes, but it will incite riots. (Milo is one of the indeterminate characters.)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] gee-tar.livejournal.com at 07:43pm on 13/02/2007
The veto rule sounds reasonable at least. Where silliness might occur, is if there is one issue that is considered by all sides to be extremely important. You could have a whole string of vetoes with each canceling out the previous one until one side gives up or runs out of its veto reserves.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by (anonymous) at 07:48pm on 13/02/2007
I don't know... were the Tribunes actually typically controlled by Senatorial factions? If not, then I would suggest that you reserve that as part of the "gameworld" that you control. If they want to get a veto, they can engage in demagoguery to try to accomplish their goals. And if they do something that the Tribunes would veto (in your judgment), then they face a veto and have to either bring the Tribunes around or deal.

The danger is it being a mechanic which is fun and interesting but bears little resemblance to the actual way Roman politics worked. (If the Tribunes were typically in the pocket of one faction or another, then never mind.)

--Adam
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] orichalcum.livejournal.com at 11:07pm on 13/02/2007
Tribunes were typically owned by a faction or political leader in this period.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] redhound.livejournal.com at 07:52pm on 13/02/2007
Well, unlimited veto leads to the UN. Which is perhaps slightly shy of disaster. I think an unlimited veto mostly leads to disaster when a veto-holder has only negative interests, and thus can't be negotiated out of vetoing.

With a one-shot veto, I would worry about how to get around the veto by simply reoffering the law. If you can't reoffer a vetoed law, can you offer a slightly amended law? Can a candidate who's been vetoed stand again? After how long?

Is the veto-veto historical? If not, what's the rationale for including it?
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] contrariety.livejournal.com at 11:59pm on 13/02/2007
I actually think it would be fascinating to give them all unlimited vetoes and see whether normative behavior was strong enough to prevent them from abusing it, but... um... that may be more reflective of my area than yours.
[link] [reply]

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
1
 2
 
 3
3
 4
 
5
 
 6
1
 7
2
 8
3
 9
1
 10
2
 11
 
12
1
 13
2
 14
 
 15
 
 16
2
 17
3
 18
 
19
1
 20
2
 21
1
 22
1
 23
 
 24
1
 25
 
26
1
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
1