It is, since everybody can contribute to defend against a persuasion attempt, not just the target player.
So the wording would be something like, each signatory agrees to maintain a reserve of X talents per turn, which talents would be specifically reserved for contribution to resist persuasion attempts, or risk prosecution, etc? It seems somewhat loose to me. What if there’s no chance of a signatory holding the censor office next year? And so on.
Ok, let me propose a draft agreement. Feel free to pick on it:
Until there’s no Punic War in Play, all signatories agree to:
1-Keep a collective total of X talents in reserve (to be calculated each turn according to possible persuation threats. Basically highest non signatory influence + oratory + personal treasury - 14)
2-That total will be used to oppose any persuation attempt against the signatories and can’t be used for anything else.
3- That total will be reserved equally divided between all signatories, adjusting each revenue phase and as permitted by other deals prior to this signing. Nonetheless if a signatory can reserve the full amount, the remaining talents will be reserved that turn by the other players (equally divided). This means the Kolberaxii can keep their 20 talents on their personal treasure and then reserve more the next turn so that an equal amount is reserved by all players.
4- In case of needing to use the reserve fund, the beneficiary of such defense will return the money to the other players at turn end, so taht the total amount in each player treasury and Senators doesn’t change.
5-The signatories will vote against any censor nomination for a non-signatory senator (note that this leaves everything open except that the censor will be one of the signatories, so it’s not too binding. It also allows for free Consul nominations so as to be as little aggressive as possible towards non-contributing players).
6-The signatories will not engage in any prosecution against other signatories when they have control of the Censor.
7- The signatories will contribute all other money (except that reserved because of other deals) to the State each turn.
Probably we’d need to change/refine some wording, but this would be a start.
It’s very complex, but that’s what we get when not everybody is willing to play ball to a much simpler deal (the original proposal).
I very much doubt I’m going to have time to read back through the thread and get my head around all of this before I travel today. If you still want a ruling, I expect to be able to provide one in either 14 or 25 hours’ time.
I’m not seeing this affecting this revolution phase, so does anyone have further cards to play/trade or can we roll on to the mortality and revenue phases?
I don’t think it impacts the revolution phase, so we can move on to the next round and discuss in the revenue phase.
Also, too, on reviewing the original @Navaronegun proposal, it was never amended to include all possible Censors, so while everyone agreed to it, I think it only prevents this year’s Dictator and Consuls from prosecuting should they be elected Censor next year. So @Juan_Raigada is right on that, more’s the pity.
Sure…now that he’s micro-parsed the umpteenth agreement and sowed doubt on it.
I shall not sign one with him again.
Agree.
To be fair, I asked this exact question — did you mean to include all possible Censor candidates — at the time, and you said you did, but you never amended the proposal, and I couldn’t find any evidence that the other parties to the agreement saw that exchange when they agreed. So I don’t think it’s clear that everyone understood your intent. Just my opinion, but the plain language of the agreement doesn’t prevent all possible Censors from prosecuting. That’s not the outcome I wanted, trust me.
Everyone clearly understood what it meant at the time of the vote.
Only he is sowing doubt on every agreement made here.
That’s fine, I don’t have to sign any more in the future with him. Caveat Emptor for me.
I’m not trying to restart the argument. I’m trying to save @rho21 the time and effort of digging back to understand what everyone agreed to. The plain language of the agreement appears to me to apply only to this year’s Consuls and the Dictator, and, other than @Juan_Raigada and me, no one else queried that language or acknowledged the clarifications about it.
It seems to me we have differing conceptions on how strict we need to adhere to the game processes and the wording of the public deals. I understand @Navaronegun’s concerns about too much discussion and wanting to get on with it, but in my opinion fudging the procedures and the wording of the dealmaking (not requiring explicit agreement just silent acquiescence, appealing to common sense understanding that might differ between parties, etc) while fine right now, will be a very big problem later on deal a deal is finally weaponized (because it’s bound to happen given the nature of the game and media we are playing it on. Forum games are prone for people not carefully reading whatever is not specifically pointed out, specially with this volume of posts).
So far we have rulings on the taking of actions that will make fulfilling a deal impossible and about the grouping of proposals to speed up play.
Seems to me that what we need now is a ruling on how literal a deal wording is to be interpreted and if a modification to a deal stated in a regular, non bolded post should be assumed to have been accepted by anybody who agrees to the deal afterwards.
Well, if everyone agreed to it before, I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t agree to it now.
I propose a public agreement that no person elected to the next Censorship will engage in any prosecutions. This agreement will take effect only if all factions agree to it.
No strings, no conditions. No dependency on any other agreements or actions.
I so agree.
I agree
Actually I proposed exactly this a while ago as a way of clarification without a ruling:
And @Navaronegun was offended for trying to clarify. Thus the call for a ruling since he wouldn’t sign.
Can proposals be made at this time? Isn’t the senate phase over?
I stand by what I said earlier. I think the micro-parsing is serving a political end in the Senate, and will not stop. Hence, I will not engage in any more public agreements with one who, on every agreement, seeks to find some flaw that violates the spirit of the agreement and then requires a further agreement, each time. After voting and agreeing it said what it meant the first time.
I’ve lost my trust in any contract I’d make with that faction. They’ll only litigate it later.
It’s an agreement, not a law. I think we can make them any time.
Sorry, I really can’t grasp your objection. Every public agreement has been upheld by all the parties, and no harm has been done anyone by discussion about what they mean.
But if you won’t join any public agreements among all parties anymore, fine.
I think one of those parties wll “go to court” on any contract I sign with him. I think that party is doing so to “play the victim”, while being the wealthiest faction. I think that party in one breath attempted to dictate how everyone spends money and requested Dictatorship for his troubles.
I have lost faith in that party. I don’t sign agreements with those I have lost faith in.
Hmm, yeah. This led me to wonder what exactly a proposal is. There is this section:
1.09.17 PROHIBITIONS: The Senate may not put forth a proposal or nomination not defined within the rules.
But I can’t for the life of me find anywhere in the rules where acceptable proposals are actually defined.
I believe what that means is that you can’t make a proposal that interacts with game mechanics in a way that messes with the normal order of things.
So for instance you can’t in the middle of the senate phase make a sudden proposal to change the master of horse for a different senator. That’s not something the senate has power over.
The HRAO is definitely allowed to make frivolous proposals that don’t interact with established game mechanics though. They just don’t do anything.
_emphasized text_It’s the four different types in the OTHER BUSINESS section, I think.