On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Just an opinion this time. YMMV. > > Bringing it back *as CotC* seems wholly unimaginative and boring, and > just what we don't want to go back to. That's why I suggested moving > the winner to Gov. Waste and keeping judgement with the Speaker. > > Most of my changes last month were stripping away of things, and I'm > not too attached if those things come back. And my Scoring Game is > so far... not the best, so I'm happy to see another score refresh. > > But the structural change I made, that I *really like*, is to have > the Speaker be an elected position with *extra votes* and some word > in judging. Makes it an *elected* position that might be worth > fighting for, as it offers some measure of straight power. > > So just as a heads-up, I'm going to fight to keep that. > > -G.
I may split them off into separate proposals though. But I am a big fan of the figurehead model of Speaker. The rewards for officeholding are influence over the offices' dominions (courts is a big one ATM) and a decent chunk of points over which I'm willing to negotiate (I'm sure ais will argue it should be higher!). If you want to rename CotC or something, I'm totally fine with that. It might also be worth looking at some other office-specific powers, like giving the Scorekeepor the ability to fudge points around. But I figure I don't want to make too much in the way of proposals since the point is to encourage proposal-based gameplay, that's easy enough to add after once there are points attached ;) Sean
