OOC Thread and Chatroom

[navarro951]

@ Ibn:Well for the sake of this being a Republic and knowing that Dentatvs would die soon and knowing how many senators opposed the idea, i said specifically that i would not override anyone's vote and keep it a fair 1 vote per person. You have to consider that in this time, technically, a dictator nor an heres even existed. But as they are an in-game part, I like to acknowledge the fact that they are there

[Ibn-Khaldun]

@ Ibn:Well for the sake of this being a Republic and knowing that Dentatvs would die soon and knowing how many senators opposed the idea, i said specifically that i would not override anyone's vote and keep it a fair 1 vote per person. You have to consider that in this time, technically, a dictator nor an heres even existed. But as they are an in-game part, I like to acknowledge the fact that they are there

The fact that the Influence is in the Rules then we must obey the rules and thus the votes need to be checked again.
The next time we have a controversial Edict I could demand the same thing that everyones votes should be 1.
If it is in the Rules then we must follow the Rules.

[Mooks]

I dont agree with that. 1 person 1 vote. Everyone agrees on that, even you, so theres no point in continuing with the rule.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I dont agree with that. 1 person 1 vote. Everyone agrees on that, even you, so theres no point in continuing with the rule.

But before we could follow this '1 person 1 vote' thing we must change our current rules with a Charter Amendment. Unless that is not done then we have to follow our current rules where some persons have more Influence.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Gah! TCV is right about that 'Tied Edicts fail' part. Don't know how I missed that one!

[SwissBarbar]

senators with great influence and rhetoric skills could always make the difference, and mighty men could influence others by their opinion, i think the system is not bad as it is. A vote from one man is not = a vote from the other man (note, that in my opinion, there are far more senators, than players that roleplay senators. Man with great influence assure the votes of more of those non-player senators)

[navarro951]

well when dentatvs was alive it would still end up a tie so it would fail anyway...from here on i will tally the "over 1" influence

[The Celtic Viking]

OOC: maybe we can get rid of the office of faction leader/heres completely? Make it so we dont even recongize it, and its just a useless ingame thing. We are roleplaying here after all, and romans despised monarchys.

I have actually been playing Pvblivs as passively rebelling against this by refusing to even mention the dictator's rank, because I've always agreed with your sentiment, and still do now. If removing them completely won't happen, then I think that the heir should at least be elected.

By the way, a question: now that Cicero is the heir, will he still be serving as my tribunus?

[navarro951]

well no, but im also still waiting to see who else wishes to challenge or side with the decision

@Mooks: I feel the same as well so for now thats how it stays if i come up with a better system then well use it.

[The Celtic Viking]

The fact that the Influence is in the Rules then we must obey the rules and thus the votes need to be checked again.
The next time we have a controversial Edict I could demand the same thing that everyones votes should be 1.
If it is in the Rules then we must follow the Rules.

I agree with this. If you want a rule changed, that's what CAs are for. No CA used, no rule changed, and it's still valid and should be followed.

However, if the result was 7-7 then the edict still failed, as rule 3.3 states:

3.3 Edicts

Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Council.
Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

Or am I missing something here?