Kai NRG

Thank you! Yes, those are 1x1s with teeth... and yeah, it was a shame that the King kind of blocked the window, so I decided I really should take a shot without him! Thanks Faladrin! This was to me the obvious way to get the colors in their easily!

I really like where you took this, with King Fernando's secret motives... I mean, that sounds like him, alright! The pumpkin is a really nice piece - where does it come from?

Hey! I actually think that the orange and dark flesh are an intriguing combination... someone should really explore that! Poor King Fernando, he's really getting a bad rap these days!

Maybe, but who on earth would build all those? Would be a handy deterrent for meaningless regulation though, I suppose. I had sort of assumed that players simply wouldn't be allowed multiple seats, except potentially in the case of PM. Certainly, one of the requirements to vote or run in a region should be having MOCed in that region. Probably, if you hold a civil office (i.e. mayor) in a region, you automatically are part of that region; if not, you can choose from among regions you've built in. Right. Let's not let those blues and reds talk us into building a system of inherent squabbling! I mean, it's not like the squabbling won't come anyways... Probably one of the better names so far, but still doesn't quite ring right to me... too busy atm for brainstorming, though. The PM can probably certainly be involved in the Eslandola-specific leadership discussions at the bare minimum.

Yes, of course I understood that it was just an example, but I figured I'd take the opportunity to mention that certain things, even though technically perhaps not susceptible to the Leadership Council veto, may simply fall outside of what the game system will allow for. Yes, that's kind of how I think of us too. We take what we like from where we like. Linguistically though, we've been sticking pretty close to Spanish/Portuguese, so we should probably stay with either that or plain English when it comes to titles.

Well, I had thought I had developed a nice way to fit a lot on an 8x8 without building to the skies, but thanks for pointing out the glaring incongruity. JK. Thanks Garmadon! My, my... let the King enjoy his colored utensils in piece, won't you? What? Poison that lovely cake?!? Thanks! Thank you Bregir! I always love showing off my food collection.

I was thinking that would more or less be the PM (or Stadholder, or whatever)'s job. I mean, what else is the PM supposed to do? Just a comment on this: taxes or other legislation that are going to involve work on the part of the leadership team may for OOC reasons not be permitted or maybe revised/etc. In the case of this specific example, that's all but impossible to automate, and bills of that nature just plain can't be passed. (Something about this point, that legislation that exceeds the capacities of the system is invalid, should probably be written into the Constitution or Bill of Rights.) That doesn't change the fact that if a PM position is seen as a) more work, and b) less influential than a normal position, players might be more keen on trying for a different seat (duh). So I agree with Capt Wolf that either a PM should have a bigger vote & influence, or he should be elegible to hold two seats. Yes, leadership will have to handle elections. It's our "job" to make sure things keep running, after all, and same as we run the main Challenges and the Trade Runs, we'll have to handle these. Not to say we can't delegate in specific cases if someone wants to volunteer, of course, but we shouldn't saddle a member who's not also part of the leadership team with this sort of responsibility long-term. Also just for information, though it seemed for a while like we were going to eliminate the 20% "matching" tax, that's now been decided in the negative, so that will stay. However theoretically the 20% could be lowered (i.e. part of it could be refunded to members), or other taxes could be raised, etc.

Thanks blackdeathgr! Thank you! Yeah, without knowing the names ahead of time the first few backstories were probably hard to follow, but I wanted to interweave gang members to some extent, so I just let it slide. Thanks! No, actually... I've never watched that.

What? Let the council decide if it wants to fine itself? Really though, I think those are points that should be written into the constitution of the council, not developed by the council to potentially change with every change of members. Of course, if you were really concerned for a particular vote, you wouldn't vote against yourself. But for average ordinary votes where your preferred policy isn't likely to lose, why not have a character that votes against you? As for building the stories, no one would have to actually use the mechanism if he didn't want to. But for me the main argument is this: out of 15 active Eslandians, it would be ridiculous to try to have 21 council members. But, we're hoping that there are several thousand minifigures populating New Eslandola, aren't we? It seems awfully oligarchical to have those thousands "represented" by 7 characters. We use whatever we please! However, I do think that we should be able to find something better than the Dutch Stadtholder. That doesn't sound Eslandian. And yeah, I think generally we're closer to Portugal. We kind of have the architecture of Spain, but we don't have the attitude Spain had towards trading, or government. I don't know a whole lot about Portuguese culture though, but I have the impression that they were more traders than Spain was. Still, I think we resemble Holland, and even England, in many ways.

Not sure if you knew it, but this has already been mentioned, and I'm definitely in favor of it. I think it could be great fun to have two characters that vote your way, and one who is always on the wrong side. Good summary there Capt Wolf! Beat me to it. 1. After thinking about this for a while, I'm in favor of the PM (for simplicity I'm gonna stick with that abbreviation for now) not having a vote. It would be his job to bring matters up and to make sure things are voted upon within the appropriate time frame. Of course other members can also make proposals, but it would be the PMs job especially to keep tabs on things. 2. We should have at least one seat elected by the populace at large, and it's fine for that one to be the PM. 3. Six months is probably a good term, and the council can always vote on a change if it's found to be inadequate. 4. I think 25 DBs won't hurt the state none, won't make y'all rich neither. And the PM can have 50. 5. I'm not qualified to answer that one. Three other questions: 6. Will members be fined for absence? (In which case there should be three votes possible: yes, no, abstaining; so that members can abstain without being fined.) > I think yes; 100 DBs, but writing a letter of excuse ahead of time (sent to the PM privately, so that he can present it to the council) should exonerate them. [Edit: 500 DB fine for an absent PM, and a 500 DB fine for two letters of excuse in a row from a PM.] 7. What is the time frame in which votes are expected to be cast? > Two weeks? This should be fast enough to handle business in time, but slow enough to enable members to be sure not to miss things. 8. What degree of privacy/secrecy do we want here? Should the Council meetings be held in open forum, or in PM threads? What would the procedure for a secret ballot be? Also, as the idea of giving titles has been floating around, I think with 21 characters in the council, certain members could be given titles tagged to a specific character that don't relate to actual duties. I mean, who wants to be titled Treasurer of Eslandola if they actually have to do the work? Just call a character that for bragging rights, based on a few speeches.

@Sir Stig - I agree that we should use some name other than Prime Minister or Premier Magistrate (so far I'd simply adopted the term because it's hard to discuss a nameless position); Stattholder or something similar is a good option. Elostirion has only replied once to this thread, but I believe he doesn't intend to actually try to break with Eslandola; that was an in-character measure.

Remind me never to get hurt along the Nelissa road. Neat mobile apparatus! And judging by the amount of blood that guy's lost, he should probably have passed out already - and no wonder he's white as a sheet!

So it can't pass unless there's a quorum, and a quorum = the amount of votes needed to pass. Yeah. Superfluous. I agree with you here... votes shouldn't be influenced by building skill (or story writing skill). Plus requiring MOCs like that is quickly going to get onerous.

Okay, that makes sense (requiring a greater number of votes for a bill to pass). So I agree that 51% of total possible votes would be a better way to handle it. Most cases of responsibilities that I listed before aren't up to veto (i.e. a simple majority would settle them once and for all). As I suggested, there would be only one case requiring a 2/3s, and that would be a veto, not overruling a veto: That could be 2/3s actual votes, which might add intrigue, or it might just add needless complication. Ooh. I love this idea!!! Seriously, members totally should be fined. But then as an offset they should have a salary. 25 DBs a month? And a fine is 100 DBs. And if you don't pay your fine (fill out a transaction form) within the week, you get hung and Eslandola confiscates the 100 without waiting for you. That should be the PM's job alright. We're still discussing whether he should be elected by the population at large or by the council though, aren't we? Generally I think decisions should be pushed through at a decent rate, and since a quorum would tend to slow things down, it's not really meeting my favor... We'll probably be slow enough as it is! A fine should be enough to keep most of the members present most of the time...

Great interior Garmadon, the full-length curtains are pretty cool and I really like that canopy bed! That golden piece in front of the fireplace fits the scene perfectly as do all the candles! Though, I'm assuming it doesn't get too cold in Terreli, otherwise with such a large room and such huge windows, that tiny fire isn't going to do much good!

Thanks ME! She's probably one of my own personal favorites as well. And yep, we've got some great MOCers here! You should definitely drop in sometimes and maybe even join Eslandola...

Just so you don't think I'm a colossal slowpoke, I'm ready and waiting for the guild leaders who have a little something to add (not my secret, so I can't be more explicit!).

Sure it encourages vote suppression, but how is that achievable? No player can force another player not to vote. On the other hand, if possible votes are counted, then an absentee automatically counts as a vote against, regardless of his actual position, which I think could possibly yield skewed results or intrigue to introduce bills during the absence of specific individuals. Of course, trying to ram things through in the absence of opponents could occur regardless. I'm not quite sure yet mathematically which one seems to be easier to take advantage of. While building in an inherent benefit for the leading party would certainly add intrigue, I think a state of fair boredom might, all things considered, be preferable... As I mentioned earlier non-Eslandians voting for our PM just wouldn't work in the heavily political atmosphere of BoBS... I mean, there would be more non-Eslandian votes than Eslandian, probably, and now candidates would have to cater to the Corries as much as to Eslandola!

Why wouldn't we hold all the elections simultaneously? Yeah, it might be nice to have election cycles, but then we're back to doing nothing but electing over and over. Yes, that was sort of the initial suggestion that got the discussion on an independent seat going. Well, I'm fine with granting independents a seat if the rest of you are, though I think it's a little odd in context and will be somewhat superfluous in practice. In that case, the Prime Minister should be elected nation-wide, I'd think, rather than be chosen by the council. And yes, no member should be able to hold two seats, but each seat can have 3 votes, and the Prime Minister can have 5 votes. I'm not in favor of granting the PM veto power, because if we set up too many veto power's we're going to be constantly running into road blocks when members aren't available. Or, if we want the PM to be elected by the council, my opinion is that we should ditch the independent seat and replace it with a nation-wide elective seat (similar to what Bregir was saying, only I don't think he should be called president, and I don't think we should have both that and an independent seat and a PM). Bregir brings up a good point about what to do when the Prime Minister isn't available. But after all if the PM's job is only to bring things up for discussion and to keep the ball rolling towards a vote, and if other members can do that as well (just that they aren't expected to do so as a job) then I don't think we need to make a provision for his disappearance, other than a different PM next election cycle. I think bills should have a time cap as to how long they can remain under vote, say two weeks. Also, we need to discuss what constitutes a pass - 51% of votes cast, or 51% of potential votes? And in the case where a 2/3s majority is required, the same thing there. IMHO it should probably be votes cast, to encourage participation.

Certainly, if the "independent candidate" is meant to be truly independent from the TCs, then the TCs should have no say (even through their members in a private capacity) in his election. But, there still would be a difference between an Eslandian-wide elected candidate and a candidate elected or chosen by a single TC. So it wouldn't be a meaningless seat. A player unaffiliated with a TC would have a chance. Average, ordinary Eslandians are meant to be represented by the regional candidates, who may or may not be members of a TC. The TCs do have a huge power hold on the government, and why would they create a seat specifically for non-TC members? TC members do have advantages over non-TC members, already (monopolies). Presumably a member who chose not to be part of a TC did so knowing that the TCs were the politically active entities of Eslandola, and knowing that any independent politicians would have an uphill climb. And, an independent can always join a TC at any time. That would be sort of in-character reasoning for not having a truly independent seat. On the other hand, out of character, we do want independents to be represented. The chance of getting elected to a regional seat and the general election seat (former independent seat) may not be enough. But the more I think of it, the more I think it is. A politically savvy independent could play the TCs off each other, presenting himself as unaffiliated and unbiased, just out there for the common minifigure - taking advantage of whatever the current political situation is. Plus, Eslandola is supposed to be set up to encourage its members to participate in a TC. From the outset, participation in the government was meant to be a perk of TC membership (specifically MCTC and ETWC). By giving a seat that automatically goes to an independent, any given independent will probably have actually a higher probability of being elected than a given TC member (unless you're an ETWC member, of course ). That doesn't make sense, since it's supposedly the TCs who have the vast majority of the control in their hands. My two cents on this issue...

Very nice vig purvel, I like how you've done the cutaway and the interior looks great! Neat use of the magnifying glass!

We could certainly grant meaningless titles for flair. Suppose someone does a great job on a campaign, we could give him the title of "Minister of War." And so on. If we have a faction-wide vote, than the point obviously will no longer be to support non-TC interests (but to support faction interests). No, amount of voters isn't important in theory, but do we really want to set up a poll that only two people can vote on? I suppose if several elections are held at the same time, that would be okay. @Capt Wolf - yeah, 3 months is awfully short. So the TCs would have to find some way to convince the public to re-elect their candidate? Hmm. Sounds intriguing, but also somewhat complicated (more elections). And we wouldn't really want a TC to be left out.

It's the 3x3 (or 2) slopes that bugs me, actually. There's just something about them that makes them seem too flat for a castle to me. But of course, that's pretty much a matter of taste!

Good point about not wanting the PM to be determined on the basis of building skills. Simply requiring a campaign MOC doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I'm not sure however that a campaign MOC should be required for every seat. I guess it does make sense for the regional seats to be elected by members deciding what region they belong to and voting thusly. Garmadon has talked me over to quarterly as well. As for the TC seats, each TC can decide how it wants to do those on its own. If ETWC thinks a poll is pointless for them, well, I agree! Having the independent trader be elected by all Eslandola seems like the only way to have an independent trader actually being elected by more than... 3 people... or something like that. But if we do it that way, then I like the suggestion of having the PM elected by the Council members (because the independent trader would be the popularly elected member). 'Course it can work in GoH, because who the PM is doesn't matter. But I don't think we really want the Corries pumping votes towards a pro-Corry PM! But you wouldn't have to create multiple players if you didn't want to. You could just have one character, and be counted three times. But for those who would like to boost the quantity of people on the council, or just have some fun with more NPC characters, 3 votes would give them some options.

@Kwatchi and @Kolonialbeamter - you've got a good point about setting things up so TCs can play off against each other. I also like the Republican vs. Royalist concept. Part of me though is scandalized at the idea of trying to build blackmailing, bribing, and intrigue into a system. I very much like Capt Wolf's basic idea - one seat for a member from each TC (the TCs can decide how to elect/appoint that member on their own), an "independent trader" (elected by vote among all non-TC Eslandians? though I don't know who would be doing the voting... ) and then 1 member from each of three regions. Those last three could be chosen by the other four? It doesn't make much sense to vote for them, and voting can be a pain. Then on top of that, I agree with Garmadon that we should have a Eslandola-wide vote for Prime Minister, incorporating the fact that this is a building game. We would require at least one build presenting the campaign, and possibly to be elegible a member should have 500+ FiPs (so that we don't exclude new members, but don't leave it open to someone who's only just joined). Each member of the council, as Garmadon mentioned I suggested, could have 3 votes, just for fun. Those could be divided between a player's NPCs if desired... you could even have two NPCs that lean towards say Republican and play another as a Royalist. Maybe the Prime Minister should get 5 votes?