I’m guessing a forum game would be very different than a face to face game when it comes to private dealing. It’s just not possible in a face to face game for 2 or 3 players to keep leaving the room to talk privately without tipping their hand.
Ok, so everybody is either talking in secret or sleeping.
So let me start the conversation: My current thinking is to give Pontifex Maximus to one of the leaders with lower influence.
But Quintius has already been vetoed.
The other leader with low influence is Aemilius. It also happens that @CraigM is the faction with lower influence overall other than @Navaronegun’s, which I can’t nominate anymore, it seems.
Would the Senate be open to such a nomination? I’m trying to evaluate support before nominating for real.
Hopefully through this first consulship of the Republic we can establish a methodology, call it a governing style, that is open to discussion and debate.
Well, in the interest of open debate and transparency, I’m reminded that you told me earlier that @CraigM approached you privately about an alliance, so it seems a bit convenient to confer the PM on him now.
I have little interest in rewarding treachery and find the accusations of a triumvirate quite ironic considering the current alignment.
I’ll not vote for any PM in that group of three.
Which group?
This was said so that you would agree for the to be Rome Consul so I could break the triumvirate. I got no messages from @CraigM (although @Navaronegun did write to me and provided some info).
Yes, of course, you would never say something that wasn’t true. Oh, wait.
You see, honored Senators, friend Junius schemed and lied in order to gain support for his Consulship; but he says he isn’t lying to you now.
We could give it to @Kolbex (you and @scottagibson already have extra influence due to consulship + censorship). But I’m unsure. @Kolbex has the best draw of Senators already. I would prefer to spread it evenly (and I will offer a consulship to @Navaronegun next year because of that).
I already admitted to scheming against your scheme.
Indeed. But can we trust a schemer not to scheme?
All I know is that you and @Panzeh tried to fix the Rome Consul elections on a rotation. Seems broken now. :)
All who favor open government should votenfor any member not of @Panzeh or @scottagibson for Pontifex.
You and @Panzeh schemed and tried to hide it. If we take out also @Navaronegun, @CraigM and myself, @Kolbex has won by default.
To put it simply, I intend for the current Rome Consul to never pass a single proposal and to have a senator from their faction prosecution. This is open. Treachery will not be rewarded.
Treachery against you or against Rome?
So early and the values of the Republic are already eroding.
I oppose @Panzeh and @scottagibson for scheming, from the beginning, to fix the elections. They are in the minority. And will run out of tribunes.
I say you move on against the schemers, @Juan_Raigada
As opposed to your scheme to form a ‘triumvirate’ of your own? I believe this was the intention from the beginning. In the end, such a disreputable consul is most certainly not the one who should be fighting important wars.
I’ll wait for further input from those yet to let their voice heard. This conversation seems to have run its course.
No such scheme on my part. If you had discussed things openly many would have cooperated. But you have only, and still, deal in threats and fiat, not discussion.
I would not have those men run Rome.
Ok, let me do this.
I propose a binding deal:
1- I will offer @CraigM the Pontifex Maximus
2- I will offer @Kolbex co-sponsorship of a Land Bill (so he can protect his faction leader with popularity, and so we can lower the unrest, since we will not prosecute wars this turn due to manpower shortage).
3- I will offer @navaronegun a consulship
@CraigM, @Kolbex and @Navaronegun will:
1- Vote against any prosecution @panzeh engages in with all their senators.
2- Vote for the land bills I’ll propose (plural, because I fear tribunes in @panzeh or @scottagibson’s hands).
3- Vote for the proposals of Pontifex and Consul next year (this is an edit, there was a loophole before where voting against those would be permitted).
All the above seems enforceable by the rules (I misread them previously)