Discussion: Coups, etc - Page 2

GeneralTacticus · October 16, 2003, 03:05

I prefer a time limit ban; anyone who launches a failed coup will be banned from trying another one for a week. (Of course, there'd be nothing to prevent them from getting involved in another coup if it was started by someone who wasn't involved...)

Hercules · October 16, 2003, 06:05

Coup leaders who fail tend to be executed, put in prison or exiled. The period of imprisonment exile might depend on who they were trying to supplant.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 11:04

I'd go for GTs idea. One week/one turnchat ban from launching another coup for a failed attempt. I would also say all positions should be safe for one week/one turnchat. That means everyone gets to have a go at doing their job, but not safe for long

I'll write up my idea and do a poll

Maniac · October 16, 2003, 15:24

How about elaborating on GT's idea:
Everyone who gives his support to some side during a coup is not allowed to participate in a coup (starting one or giving your support) in the next week, no matter if the person you supported lost or won the coup, no matter if you are defending a person or attacking a person in a coup.
This would be to reflect the political instability following a coup attempt. It would also add a strategic element in the coup system, as withholding your support during a coup might give you a better shot to make a coup succeed within a week of the first coup. It would also give smaller political movements a more realistic shot at gaining a position, for example when the two biggest alliances just wasted all their votes trying to coup each other.

Corellion · October 16, 2003, 15:58

Sounds like a good idea... I like the strategic element, and it will help prevent a coup-a-rama.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 16:10

However that does mean that people who are not generally supported can be appointed, since others have used their votes. It also makes supporting, or even defending against a coup, as damaging as being the person launching it. It means it's the same penalty if you lost than if you won. It also means that if someone successfully defended a position they could be attacked the next day and be unable to vote in for themselves. It seems a little much to me, personally.

I would say if you fail in the coup, or you are deposed, you should have a period of one turnchat until you can launch another. However they would still have residual supporters, and they would still be able to vote in others. I think those who vote should have no penalty. A week for supporting a coup that worked seems a little harsh. Also it would be an administrative nightmare knowing who can or cannot vote in a certain coup attempt. I think everyone should be able to vote. It's just much easier.

Hercules · October 16, 2003, 17:14

I presume its possible to have two or more coups in operation at the same time for different officials and at different stages but with the generally agreed coup rules operating. Or do we want a situation of its Thusday it must be coup day.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 18:22

As many coups going as people want to launch, but staying within the rules of the coup. How long should they last? 3, 5 or 7 days?

GeneralTacticus · October 16, 2003, 21:17

I don't especially like Maniac's idea; saying that someone who backed a coup (or even just took part in it) cannot start/back another coup for another week is one thing, but saying that they can't participate at all is quite another. For one thing, one could easily exploit such a rule by having an expendable person start a coup and letting a few important people oppose it, and then starting the real coup after the influence of the other side is much diminished.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 21:50

I think that was his idea, the new level of tactics. I think it's way to complex though. I think that much tactics in the coups takes away from the game.

Hercules · October 16, 2003, 23:18

I think I have the solution, Inspector Hercules sharpens knife.
Well how about just one coup attempt against each position allowed in a two week period. Say in the period 1 - 14, one attempt could be made any day within the 14. In the next 14 days another attempt could be made or not. This could lead to permutations such as an attempt on day 2 and another or counter on day 27. Or an attempt on day 12 and another on day 15. So timing would be an important part

Or if you prefer you could say only two attempts relating to a position a month.

So when attempting a coup you would have to be aware of the potential of the counter coup. As I presume voting is not secret, then we can forbid someone who voted for the winner, to stage a dummy counter coup as a spoiler.

Well its an idea, heavily but juicely complex.

GeneralTacticus · October 17, 2003, 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I think that was his idea, the new level of tactics. I think it's way to complex though. I think that much tactics in the coups takes away from the game.

So do I, and more than that, I don't think it makes sense. Now, it stands to reason that after a hotly contested coup things will be in some dissarray, but if some upstart launches a coup with three votes and it's easily put down, that shouldn't really have any major repercussions for anyone except them... and the losers of a coup should probably be put more at a disadvantage than the winners, if you think about it logically.

Drogue · October 17, 2003, 11:23

I think Hercs idea is a bit complex. Moreover, I think each person who gets a positions should have it for at least 1 turnchat.

Hercules · October 17, 2003, 23:35

That's a reasonable rule: A person who succeeds to a position, holds it for at least one turn chat, (which can vary according to the flows of the game)
but must have held office for at least 7 days before they can be challenged.

Maniac · October 18, 2003, 12:09

Besides having a more tactical level, my - of course rude and unfinished - idea above was to counter the possibility of an alliance holding 51% of the votes to keep the same position for the entire game while many people wanted a change of government. Though since it doesn't seem to have much support, ditch the proposal I guess.

Btw, could someone please summarize the recent discussion and things agreed upon the last few days? With all the different variations proposed, I'm not really up to date anymore what's the general consensus.

I have another matter to ponder btw. Since we plan to ditch elections, does that also mean there won't be a three term/month limit on holding the same position?

Hercules · October 18, 2003, 17:11

Correct

Drogue · October 18, 2003, 18:53

There should be no turn limit, IMHO.

As for a run down on what has been decided, I think the voting system should be:

Quote:

Secretaries of Republics - 2
Secretaries - 3
Politburo Members - 3
Chairman - 4
General Secretary - 5

All unappointed citizens get 1 vote.

With 2 extra points for the person that holds the position being contended (they will have extra influence over that department, being that they legitimately control the defenses and employees of that department) and if you hold many positions, you get the votes for all (since you control the defenses and employees of all of those departments, and you have the same influence as multiple people who hold those positions). Split votes are not allowed.

If you fail in your attempt to dispose of someone, you may not launch another coup for a period of one turnchat, and if you succeed then no-one else may launch a coup against you for a period of one turnchat. Therefore all officials get at least one turnchat in charge. There may not be two coups for the same position at any one time, although there may be multiple coups for multiple positions ongoing.

I have one final idea, which I will include on the point. If there is a coup ongoing, I don't see what is to stop someone else entering the fray. All votes cast stand, but they can get votes from when they enter (finish time is still 5 days after first launched). It is harder to get appointed as a third candidate, but if a position is in turmoil, others may tried to capitalise on this. It is more realistic IMHO.

I will poll for acceptance.

Edit: Poll has been started here.