Voting lol

[Good Ol’ Bender]

Perhaps not the correct forum, but it did happen in VP.

Secretary-General: "Next on the agenda: a motion from Spain to ban crabs. Those in favor?"
Spain: "Aye!"
Everyone else: "."
Secretary-General: "Those opposed?"
Spain: "Nay!"
Everyone Else: "."
Secretary-General: "The crab ban fails to pass."
Spain: "Hooray!!! Oh...wait a minute... :/"

(Yes, I know how this happened, someone bribed her to use one of her two votes against herself. It's still hilarious, imo.)

 

[youngsteve]

I would make a bug report as that is clearly wrong if Spain has control of most crab resources. I have noticed silly things like that in my games where civs vote for both sides. It shouldn't be possible in my opinion to do that, either one or neither.

 

[Solic]

I would make a bug report as that is clearly wrong if Spain has control of most crab resources. I have noticed silly things like that in my games where civs vote for both sides. It shouldn't be possible in my opinion to do that, either one or neither.

It's fine, it means that one of the votes was bought in the dealmaking screen. Civs can't know how other civs vote, so it still could have been a good vote and deal to make.

 

[youngsteve]

It's fine, it means that one of the votes was bought in the dealmaking screen. Civs can't know how other civs vote, so it still could have been a good vote and deal to make.

Sorry, how can it be fine if you received payment to vote against your self. Makes little sense. Imagine this happening in real life whereby you were voting for both sides. Any civ doing this wouldn't be trusted by anyone.

 

[Solic]

Sorry, how can it be fine if you received payment to vote against your self. Makes little sense. Imagine this happening in real life whereby you were voting for both sides. Any civ doing this wouldn't be trusted by anyone.

Delegates of a country don't need to always vote as a bloc. Real life arguments are a bit meeh to me anyways.

In context of the game, it can make sense to commit to selling your vote against your normal voting interest, if it's lucrative enough. What's the alternative you are proposing?

To delve deeper in the example, what if Spain only gained majority crab after they had already committed their votes in a deal? Strategic interests can change over time, so I'm fine with them greedily selecting what's best in the present, in terms of dealmaking and actual voting. It's probably the easiest system to code and be consistent.

 

[CrazyG]

The AI will sometimes (not illogically) change it's position on a topic between proposal and voting.

Another funny example I've seen is an AI voting against it's own proposal. It is funny to see but not necessarily wrong.

 

[Melchizedek]

I've voted against my own proposal before. A lot can happen in 20 turns.

 

[Good Ol’ Bender]

I've voted against my own proposal before. A lot can happen in 20 turns.

Often times I’ll propose something I don’t want just to make everyone happy then vote it down when it comes up.

 

[cammcken]

Often times I’ll propose something I don’t want just to make everyone happy then vote it down when it comes up.

I always found it funny how you get relations changes from voting on an AI's proposal but no effect from voting on an item someone else proposed, even if it has large consequences on the original AI. IIRC, you can dump 16 votes on embargoing Spain, but if someone else initially proposes it, Spain doesn't feel any worse about you.

 

[Recursive]

I always found it funny how you get relations changes from voting on an AI's proposal but no effect from voting on an item someone else proposed, even if it has large consequences on the original AI. IIRC, you can dump 16 votes on embargoing Spain, but if someone else initially proposes it, Spain doesn't feel any worse about you.

Yes, it does currently work like this. I've thought of adding an opinion penalty for voting to sanction or decolonize someone.

 

[cammcken]

voting to sanction or decolonize someone.

Maybe also for Heads of religions when voting on World Religion?

 

[azum4roll]

Yes, it does currently work like this. I've thought of adding an opinion penalty for voting to sanction or decolonize someone.

Then you'll always upset someone unless you only vote on your own proposal...

 

[Recursive]

Then you'll always upset someone unless you only vote on your own proposal...

You are allowed to abstain. As for always, not really? Sanctions and Decolonization are only two resolutions. Maybe could extend that to Global Liberation too, for masters.

Could add a +/- modifier for passing World Religion/Ideology too.

I don't see this as a problem, really. Conflict will naturally arise as a result of different priorities.