MEUSTRUS'S PROFILE

author=Feldschlacht IV
War, actually.

There's a lot of examples of historical rules who got their rocks off constant conflict and such, and of course there have been wars that could be argued as necessary and inevitable (wars against invasions, etc), but there's countless instances throughout history where the decision to go to war or not isn't so clear cut. This is especially considering wise rulers who had a lot to think about whether or not it would be wise to commit their country to conflict.

You're a ruler of Nation A, and Nation B is antagonistic towards your nation, but doesn't want to engage your country directly, but instead ceases vital trade with your nation and takes over nearby arable land and fishing. If you don't do something, your people will starve. Will you send your country to war to defend your country's assets? Either way, people will die.

In the modern era, these scenarios don't exist too much anymore, so it's easy to consider war as a last of a last resort for most everything, but hundreds of years ago or longer, these sort of things happened all the time. As a ruler, you had some tough choices to make.

Yes. Foreign policy is the #1 responsibility of any government, from tribal leaders to dictatorships to modern democracies. Even if he doesn't give a rat sass about building roads or protecting the people from famine, a ruler is still responsible for protecting the country from external threats. Even selfish dictators have to build walls to at least protect themselves, and it's a good idea to make sure the farmlands don't get taken over or burnt or the farmers killed or enslaved or any of that because then who will grow the food for your banquets?

Alright. New revision that should avoid my disagreement with LockeZ and also solve the problem of players waiting for others to vote. I'm putting it up for a vote immediately.

Proposal 310: Amendment to rule 201: New turns will begin according to the following procedure:

1. When a player puts a proposal up for a vote, that player's "Next Turn Players" shall be determined as follows: for each player currently taking a turn, select the player whose username alphabetically follows that player.
2. Following the end of a player's turn, each of that player's "Next Turn Players" that is not currently taking or concluding a turn shall begin a new turn.

Following the passage of this rule, the next two players in alphabetical order by username will begin their turns simultaneously. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

Why couldn't they? Proposals end when the final vote has been cast and a player could easily cast final votes for both at the same time. If everyone else has voted for both proposals that is.

The idea behind expanding the number of turns happening at once: If Shinan and TangledLion are currently taking their turns, after one of their turns is over, Trihan begins a turn. If Shinan finished first, then when either TangledLion or Trihan finishes, DrOctopus gets a turn. But if TangledLion finished first, then when either player finishes then DrOctopus AND TangledLion both begin new turns. And we have three turns going on at once.

So if the finishers were TangledLion, then Shinan, you've got TangledLion, Trihan, and DrOctopus going all at once. No matter who finishes, only LockeZ will start a new turn because Trihan and DrOctopus are already taking a turn.

But if the finishers were TangledLion, then Trihan, you've got Shinan, TangledLion, and DrOctopus going all at once. The next time someone finishes a turn, Trihan and LockeZ will both start new turns.

It's also possible for two turns to end simultaneously since I could easily cast the final vote for everyone's proposal at the same time. If the current turn is TangledLion, Trihan, and DrOctopus, and I do that...well then only LockeZ starts a turn and we're back to normal aren't we?

So here are some intended side effects:

1. Players are incentivized to take their turns quickly, because if TangledLion finishes his turn before Shinan does, he gets an extra turn soon.
2. If players take too long, we may end up with more players taking turns at once.
3. Whose turn it is becomes more confusing and frantic.
4. We might potentially end up with all players taking a turn simultaneously. Not very likely, but it would be hilarious if it actually happened.
5. If we all decide we're tired of having multiple turns at once, then as long as nobody votes for one open proposal but not the other it is possible to practically repeal this rule without a rule change.

...there is no editing grace period is there? I only changed "At the end of every player's turn..." to "Following the end...". Just to make it clear the the new turn starts right after the previous one ended.