Jump to content

Senator Sanction/Team Message Number Requirements


Recommended Posts

This is the first time you responded to the ideas, so I will respond to this.  You can't honestly claim I attacked you personally, the only mention of you is a criticism of your posts not contributing to the discussion.  I said if you don't want to discuss the ideas, and simply want to argue for the sake of arguing, I'm going to ignore you.

 

1.  Yes, one idea is to eliminate the bar, that is an idea which you have criticized.  This would allow anyone elected senator to issue sanctions or send team messages.  You and others criticized it because it would allow anyone to jump to a color, take over senate, and sanction.  Two possible solutions, require someone to be on a color for 5 days before they can vote, or go to the other options below:

 

2.  Allow those elected senator after 5 days OF VOTING (see the first post I mentioned it in--I said the sanctions can be issued by those senators clearly elected after 5 days of voting).  You are purposefully misrepresenting what I said.  So far I don't see the downside of this one.  If after 5 days you are a senator, odds are you will be one 10 days, and 15 days, later.  It allows people on small colors to coordinate their votes before their color is taken over by someone else (which I'm not so sure is a big problem if people wanted to do that anyways).

 

3.  Not practically the same thing, requires a MINIMUM of 10% or 15% of active nations on the color to have voted for you and you still to be elected as a Senator (wherever makes sense).  You still need to be in the top 3 to be a senator, too.  I could have made that more clear, that is my bad.  It's a two part checklist.  Haven't seen criticism here yet.

 

4.  Eliminate the senate entirely because according to what others have posted in this thread, it really doesn't do anything other than that on the super populated cover it can be used to knock out the competition for an award at the end of the round.

 

Finally, do you see the irony of you accusing me of attacking you personally (please find where I made an ad hominem attack) and the repeated theme and language of your posts stating that I am "whining," that my posts are "whiny," that I am "ranting" and that you paraphrase my idea as "waaaa?"  That's it, I simply won't be responding to your future posts.  Every post I've ever made in a suggestion thread you have simply poopoo'ed the ideas.  My job isn't to appease you, I'm trying to offer multiple ideas to make a common sense change to a TE mechanic that doesn't make sense due to the lack of nations playing TE.

 

So, again your ideas come back to eliminating a bar, eliminating a bar after 5 days, or setting a bar that is at 3 for yellow currently.  All are pretty much identical in the problem.  Again this is not hard to see.

 

You asked where you lashed out?  Sure:

 

Instead of offering any ideas or discussing what might work, you have simply poopoo'ed all the ideas, contributing none of your own.  I suppose that is the easiest position to take, just criticize everyone else and contribute nothing of your own.  That is what you have been doing in other suggestion threads, as well.  I get it, you just want to argue with someone.  

 

Seems pretty clearly off topic of this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered to read all this. 

 

1. I don't see anything wrong with the current situation for senate. It's less useful in TE due to the different political atmosphere, but is functional in the scenario that I mentioned in this thread before. However, if we were to make any changes to the current senate, then I'd support getting rid of 1/3 of the colors to force alliances to share color spheres. I'd also change this rule to jive more with TE:

 

 

 

 The senate candidate list is made up of the top 100 nations

 

2. Lowering the required votes for senators to be functional would be reckless since it would create instability, and therefore take power from alliances. All you really need is 10-15 nations voting regularly for a senator. If this were implemented, I'd feel obligated to roll any nations on green that tried to run for senate if I felt they were a threat to my alliance's security. For instance, NLoN for the past couple rounds has always had at least 1 nation that tries to run for green team senate. They are constantly coming after us, so it would be in our best interest to force their nations from the sphere that choose to be on green. It creates unnecessary drama IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered to read all this. 

 

1. I don't see anything wrong with the current situation for senate. It's less useful in TE due to the different political atmosphere, but is functional in the scenario that I mentioned in this thread before. However, if we were to make any changes to the current senate, then I'd support getting rid of 1/3 of the colors to force alliances to share color spheres. I'd also change this rule to jive more with TE:

 

 

2. Lowering the required votes for senators to be functional would be reckless since it would create instability, and therefore take power from alliances. All you really need is 10-15 nations voting regularly for a senator. If this were implemented, I'd feel obligated to roll any nations on green that tried to run for senate if I felt they were a threat to my alliance's security. For instance, NLoN for the past couple rounds has always had at least 1 nation that tries to run for green team senate. They are constantly coming after us, so it would be in our best interest to force their nations from the sphere that choose to be on green. It creates unnecessary drama IMO. 

 

If we'd change one rule to jive more with TE (top 100 as candidates) then why not change the other rule for votes needed?  (your response would be your #2, I suppose).

 

Instability can be fun, esp. in TE.  I don't foresee it taking power from alliances and giving it to GDI's (gosh darn independents).  Only allied people will be able to effectively get enough votes to elect a senator.  It may take power from the largest alliances, I admit that could happen.  It just seems odd that after a full round of voting, no senator on any color, including me (highest by far vote getter on Yellow, 1 less than highest overall on any color as of yesterday), has the power yet to do anything.  

 

You rolling NLON wouldn't necessarily protect you from getting sanctioned if they elected a senator, it would just kill their nations off.  It sounds like you already have a reason for doing so if they are gunning for you every round.  Instead of rolling them, you could have an understanding/treaty (I know that's a strange concept for the TE as opposed to SE, but NDO has had treaties).

 

I've never heard of unnecessary drama :popcorn: .  In this case, it's just spicing up the status quo a little and, more importantly, giving meaning to, and making adjustments to, the senate system so that it makes even just a little sense in the TE world.

 

Otherwise, let's just drop it entirely in TE, right?  What would be the harm in that, other than causing final days drama between the largest alliances on the same color?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You rolling NLON wouldn't necessarily protect you from getting sanctioned if they elected a senator, it would just kill their nations off.  It sounds like you already have a reason for doing so if they are gunning for you every round.  Instead of rolling them, you could have an understanding/treaty (I know that's a strange concept for the TE as opposed to SE, but NDO has had treaties).

 

I do not negotiate with terrorists  :gun:

 

EDIT: Also, to your comment on nobody having enough senate votes to do anything as senator. War Doves has 2 senators this round. If you add up all our votes, we'd have the necessary 25 for green team messages already. You may then question why to use 2 senators, and my answer to you would be that we'll get the votes necessary before the next election reset, and we're not in a hurry to harass the green team with cheesy jokes. 

 

2nd EDIT: Also, looks like TEPD is going for 2 senators as well. 

Edited by Samwise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:war:  You could always just give them what they want without negotiating, then.   :D

 

We do. They want to attack us after we've warred all round while they quietly wait for the "opportune" moment. We let them attack us on their own terms every round. We're so nice.  :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...