On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:32 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Honestly, though, a constrained Dictator *could* also become part of > the system > successfully. For example, if the Dictator decided all appeals (though > for > protection, e couldn't *raise* appeals without 3 supporters), it might > be > interesting and work somewhat. At one point, the Appeals Panel was > fixed as > *always* being the Speaker, the Arbitor), and a random third. It > actually did > function as an interesting kind of supreme court - if you knew the > Speaker and > Arbitor has a position or philosophy, this influenced whether you would > appeal. > > -G. > > > Interesting. Would be people be interested in going this direction? I think I > will > still repeal Dictator and allow any dynastic aspects to vest in the > Speakership, but > it's good food for thought.
I've always been in favor of hierarchical power structures in this game (even unbalanced ones) if there's a relatively untouchable and gameplay interesting ways to topple them on ~frequency of game wins.
