Counterproposals Opened for VP Congress (Special) Session #8

[Recursive]

Literally last session Polynesia was split up into three different proposal threads.

Aside from that, we had a bunch of mix and match proposals like Mongolia and Policy trees.

I agree it is novel, but I stand by the decision for this Special Session. A couple civs, fine; all 43, especially with how complicated the vote already is by necessity, will just lead to chaos.


Additionally, per the terms of the 4UC vote, the community has agreed to the following, which requires that all civs end up with 4 components.

It is NOT on whether to integrate all 43 civ kits exactly as proposed by pineappledan, but it IS an agreement to integrate the version that the community sponsors and votes on.

If you're proposing a single component and others propose a single component, how are we supposed to decide which ones get in? All proposals need to be complete for this vote to work.

That this session is different and you expect a complete kit to be proposed is fine, but we absolutely have had a lot of sponsored proposals in earlier sessions that were "tweak this one individual piece, I don't care what happens to the rest".

This is the case, yes. It is not precedent for all future sessions.

 

[CppMaster]

If you're proposing a single component and others propose a single component, how are we supposed to decide which ones get in? All proposals need to be complete for this vote to work

Easily. Either original 4UC version of the component or one of the proposed, whichever gets most votes.

 

[Hinin]

I mean, if only parts of the proposals I made are integrated, but not others, then I prefer them to not be integrated at all. The proposals are made with the whole kit in mind, so only taking parts of them would not only result in potential unbalancing, but would also destroy the logic that contributed to the proposals in the first place.

In the end, if the author of the proposal doesn't explicitely indicate that her / his proposal can be cut in parts for the sake of voting (I did that for the Celts proposal for example), then I would keep it whole during the voting phase.

 

[azum4roll]

I mean, if only parts of the proposals I made are integrated, but not others, then I prefer them to not be integrated at all. The proposals are made with the whole kit in mind, so only taking parts of them would not only result in potential unbalancing, but would also destroy the logic that contributed to the proposals in the first place.

In the end, if the author of the proposal doesn't explicitely indicate that her / his proposal can be cut in parts for the sake of voting (I did that for the Celts proposal for example), then I would keep it whole during the voting phase.

We've had this kind of proposals before. The poll ended up lumping all related proposals together, with some choices compatible to each other while some are not.

 

[Recursive]

We've had this kind of proposals before. The poll ended up lumping all related proposals together, with some choices compatible to each other while some are not.

Which wasn't a huge deal for Polynesia only (its main power was from the UA and UI, not the UU), but would be much more of a problem if all 43 civs were being redesigned. Splitting up the votes in that case was done out of necessity because people made several counterproposals that overlapped like spaghetti.

Easily. Either original 4UC version of the component or one of the proposed, whichever gets most votes.

...Actually, fair enough, I didn't think that one through as well. However, the decision stands that Frankenstein style assembly of civs' components would be bad for the game.