The Democrat Party Headquarters Thread (No Repubs Allowed!!)

[path12]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

One concern: since a majority of the Dems have to vote for a BG, then the wolves will know who it is. Essentially, he is public. If we want it to be secret, we should hve the job appointed by the Democratic Leader. If public, then we can do it as a caucus. Thoughts?

We could choose in thread, but you're right that would effectively out the person. I'd have no problem with the Leader coming up with the choice.

[KWhit]

I worry that too many people will know the identity of the BG. The strength in the role is that the Wolves don't know who it is. I think we make the BG determined randomly among all non-Wolf Party members. That way the wolves have no idea who the BG is.

(Of course, then we don't know who he is either)....

[Chubby]

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

The Bodyguard may protect either theirself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic caucus. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic caucus' choosing.

Each party's Liasons will be aware of the identities of both the Seer and the Bodyguard. do we want to leave this in due to concerns of a liason being a wolf?

Non-binding resolution: Support of this bill demonstrates support of a generic seer bill put forth by the Republicans. Do we want this in?

Presidential Term Limits: President's would be allowed to seek re-election once. do we want this in?

2nd draft

[chesapeake]

For Speaker:

We need to stick together to have the best chance of winning the vote. Chubby throwing himself out there makes me a little uncomfortable, but he is at the right spot in the spectrum to best give us a chance to win the job. Thoughts?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Wrong.

I'm pretty sure you just quoted the rules showing me right Maybe I wasn't clear on how I thought the rules read on this...

KWhit puts forward a bill, he can link up to 2 other people to said bill.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

For Speaker:

We need to stick together to have the best chance of winning the vote. Chubby throwing himself out there makes me a little uncomfortable, but he is at the right spot in the spectrum to best give us a chance to win the job. Thoughts?

Hey, my name was thrown out and nobody else seems to want it. I'd rather have our party have Speaker than the repubs. As a moderate I think I can keep the repubs voting for our items while keeping the folks back home happy.

We need a speaker to sign bills today so if it's me or a repub then of course I'm going to put myself out there.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I'm pretty sure you just quoted the rules showing me right Maybe I wasn't clear on how I thought the rules read on this...

KWhit puts forward a bill, he can link up to 2 other people to said bill.

Yeah, but I thought you were saying the Leader is automatically one of the two sponsors since he's presenting the bill:

Originally Posted by Chubby

With you as our leader you are already sponsoring it by bringing it to the house floor. We'd need another person besides you (or we are able to have another one sponsor it since you aren't able to)

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I worry that too many people will know the identity of the BG. The strength in the role is that the Wolves don't know who it is. I think we make the BG determined randomly among all non-Wolf Party members. That way the wolves have no idea who the BG is.

(Of course, then we don't know who he is either)....

I can't imagine that CR would allow us to write in the law that the BG is selected from non-wolf party members at random. If so, we would be gifted a way to set up an unattackable pillar of a circle of trust.

I love the idea if we could get away with it.

[path12]

Third try.

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

The Bodyguard may protect either themself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic Leader. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic Leader's choosing.

Non-binding resolution: Support of this bill may be seen as support of a generic seer bill put forth by the Republicans.


Left the term limit thing out. I don't know that I'd be in favor of that quite yet.......

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Yeah, but I thought you were saying the Leader is automatically one of the two sponsors since he's presenting the bill:

Yah, I meant that he didn't count as one of the two.

I think KWhit was initially saying it should be him and someone else sponsoring which is where that came from.

[path12]

BTW, I want to be one of the sponsors of this bill. Have to actually do some work now (er, I mean, go to a committee meeting) but will be back soon.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by path12

Third try.

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

The Bodyguard may protect either themself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic Leader. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic Leader's choosing.

Non-binding resolution: Support of this bill may be seen as support of a generic seer bill put forth by the Republicans.


Left the term limit thing out. I don't know that I'd be in favor of that quite yet.......

I don't like including the seer bill portion. I don't think it's needed. Both sides of the aisle are going to want a seer and a BG, so these will both pass. However, we don't want to be seen by the public as pandering to the Right or openly supporting a seer bill. That won't look good to the public.

And I agree that we shouldn't have the term limit thing in at this point.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

For Speaker:

We need to stick together to have the best chance of winning the vote. Chubby throwing himself out there makes me a little uncomfortable, but he is at the right spot in the spectrum to best give us a chance to win the job. Thoughts?

Henry hasn't checked in so between him and Chubby, I think we should put Chubby out there unless we thought we could get PackerFanatic elected.

I think we need to use one or more (if allowed) things of slurry and support on whoever we select to push for Speaker because they will then probably be the best candidate for President. (Or do we need to select different persons since that election is tomorrow?)

[Chubby]

path - the only reason Im throwing it out now is because if a Dem wins Prez there's no way that expanding the term limits will pass. I think having the stronger forum members we will ensure we are all popular enough to our own people and to the nation, moreso than the repubs.

Yes it's risky but we'll never get support for it after the 1st prez election. It seems like most of us have a good grasp of the rules. I'd like to think we have a better understanding than the repubs.

Of course, if everyone wants it out then leave it out. Just throwing ideas out there

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by path12

BTW, I want to be one of the sponsors of this bill. Have to actually do some work now (er, I mean, go to a committee meeting) but will be back soon.

I was going to suggest that as well, since you actually are writing the thing.

[Chubby]

the non-binding resolution is something to keep in mind down the road.

I can see where KWhit is coming from based on how his district leans.

I think having non-binding is something we can use to our advantage down the road as one of those things we can do but isn't stated in the rules...

[Chubby]

I do think that we need to have something besides simply establishing the role in the bill. It sounds like (from tyrith's post) the repubs are going to try and do the same thing in their seer bill.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chubby

path - the only reason Im throwing it out now is because if a Dem wins Prez there's no way that expanding the term limits will pass. I think having the stronger forum members we will ensure we are all popular enough to our own people and to the nation, moreso than the repubs.

Yes it's risky but we'll never get support for it after the 1st prez election. It seems like most of us have a good grasp of the rules. I'd like to think we have a better understanding than the repubs.

Of course, if everyone wants it out then leave it out. Just throwing ideas out there

It's a good idea, but it has 3 risks:

1) Could be struck down by the SC (which would lose us our BG as well for at least a day and cause us to lose another law since we'd have to re-submit our BG bill tomorrow).

2) Could cause the Repubs to vote against the BG bill - that would hurt our popularity and lose us a day (see above)

3) If a Wolf happens to get the Presidency, it would make getting him out much more difficult

[chesapeake]

Proposed changes:

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party":

BE IT RESOLVED:
The role of Bodyguard is hereby established. The Bodyguard may protect either him or herself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic Leader to serve in that role permanently. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, he or she may be removed from the role with the vote of 60 percent of Congress and replaced with a new member, chosen by the Democratic Leader. Should the Bodyguard leave Congress for any reason, that individual loses the role of Bodyguard and the Democratic Leader may immediately appoint a new Member of Congress to become the Bodyguard.

The Republican Leader will be informed of the identity of the Bodyguard immediately upon the Bodyguard's selection.

This keeps the ID of the BG relatively secret, but should satisfy the GOP. I chose the 60% threshold anticipating that, if things get dark and the wolves get close, we won't have an unachievable vote threshold to reach. I also added text to ensure that the BG can be replaced upon death or removal from Congress.

[Chubby]

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

The Bodyguard may protect either themself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic Leader. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic Leader's choosing.


I think this part is rock solid. A homerun for the Democratic party.

[KWhit]

So what are some ways that the BG role could be slightly expanded? A % chance to identify / kill his attacker? What else?

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I also added text to ensure that the BG can be replaced upon death or removal from Congress.

That sounds like something the SC would strike down. Might want to run it by him first.

[PackerFanatic]

I like the chance to identify the attacker. I think anything more might be pushing it.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

So what are some ways that the BG role could be slightly expanded? A % chance to identify / kill his attacker? What else?

Are there risks to tricking out the role? Is the idea that CR will overturn it via the Supreme Court if we take too much power?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chubby

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party", be it agreed that:

The Bodyguard may protect either themself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person (or self) in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard will be chosen by the Democratic Leader. If confidence is lost in the Bodyguard, they may be removed from the role with the vote of a two-thirds majority of Congress and replaced with a new member of the Democratic Leader's choosing.


I think this part is rock solid. A homerun for the Democratic party.

I don't think it's a good idea to give me the power of picking the BG. 2 reasons:

1) You guys don't know if I'm a Wolf or not at this point; it's dangerous to give that to me.

2) What if I accidently choose a Wolf for the BG role? Then our BG is essentially pointless.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

It's a good idea, but it has 3 risks:

1) Could be struck down by the SC (which would lose us our BG as well for at least a day and cause us to lose another law since we'd have to re-submit our BG bill tomorrow). I'd say ask CR 1st before proposing

2) Could cause the Repubs to vote against the BG bill - that would hurt our popularity and lose us a day (see above) Yes that could lose us a day, but I'm not sure they'd want to risk not having a BG. Would we want to risk not having a seer that while it's a repub role, is going to help us vs the wolves?

3) If a Wolf happens to get the Presidency, it would make getting him out much more difficultI THINK it would be easier to get a wolf out of the Prez vs a regular repub/democrat since both sides would want a wolf out for sure

See above

[PackerFanatic]

I think making it a random non-wolf member is a better idea - that way NO one knows who it is. We don't know who could be a wolf. Like Kwhit said, he could be a wolf OR choose a wolf, which both would be very bad.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't think it's a good idea to give me the power of picking the BG. 2 reasons:

1) You guys don't know if I'm a Wolf or not at this point; it's dangerous to give that to me.

2) What if I accidently choose a Wolf for the BG role? Then our BG is essentially pointless.

along with 2, if you are good and accidentakky pick a wolf then it makes the BG useless and takes you down too...

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't think it's a good idea to give me the power of picking the BG. 2 reasons:

1) You guys don't know if I'm a Wolf or not at this point; it's dangerous to give that to me.

2) What if I accidently choose a Wolf for the BG role? Then our BG is essentially pointless.

Your concerns are valid, but having the BG be, essentially, a publicly known entity renders him virtually useless, doesn't it? He would have to protect himself pretty much all the time.

How many wolves are there usually in an 18 person game? 4 or 5? Assuming they are evenly split by party, the odds are about as good as they are going to be that you are not a wolf and that your pick for BG will not be a wolf. I'm not sure throwing it to a vote of the caucus improves the chances of not selecting a wolf enough to offset the probability that he immediately becomes roadkill.

[Chubby]

along with KWhits thoughts...

but we also want to keep some control over the BG I think to better the party since it is our role.

I don't know, I see the benefit of making it totally random too (non-wolf random but don't know if that'd fly with CR)

[Chubby]

We also need to select a presidential candidate for today, we need to keep that in mind as well.

[KWhit]

What is the standard BG role description? I think we go from there and then tweak it.

[PackerFanatic]

I don't see why it wouldn't fly with him, since that is usually how the role is determined in a normal game. We could lock it down to say non-wolf democrat, but repubs might not like that and it would seriously narrow down who it is for the repub wolves.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chubby

along with KWhits thoughts...

but we also want to keep some control over the BG I think to better the party since it is our role.

I don't know, I see the benefit of making it totally random too (non-wolf random but don't know if that'd fly with CR)

I think that will totally be okay with CR since that's what the standard BG role is (it's random, but not a wolf).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

I don't see why it wouldn't fly with him, since that is usually how the role is determined in a normal game. We could lock it down to say non-wolf democrat, but repubs might not like that and it would seriously narrow down who it is for the repub wolves.

Right. And I'm hoping that they (repubs) aren't going to narrow the seer down to just their party.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Your concerns are valid, but having the BG be, essentially, a publicly known entity renders him virtually useless, doesn't it? He would have to protect himself pretty much all the time.

How many wolves are there usually in an 18 person game? 4 or 5? Assuming they are evenly split by party, the odds are about as good as they are going to be that you are not a wolf and that your pick for BG will not be a wolf. I'm not sure throwing it to a vote of the caucus improves the chances of not selecting a wolf enough to offset the probability that he immediately becomes roadkill.

Maybe I wasn't clear before, but my thinking is that it should randomly be chosen by CR.

[chesapeake]

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party":

BE IT RESOLVED:
The role of Bodyguard is hereby established. The Bodyguard may protect either him or herself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard shall notify Chief Rum of who he or she intends to protect prior to passage of the daytime deadline.

Should the person under the Bodyguard's protection be attacked by wolves, there is a 25% chance that the attacker is killed by the Bodyguard. Should the attacker survive, there is a 25% chance that the identity of the attacker will become known to the Bodyguard.

The Bodyguard will be chosen randomly by divine providence (aka Chief Rum) from among the living Members of Congress who are not wolf party members.

How dies this look?

[chesapeake]

dies=does

[henry296]

Here is my real life situation... I'm in training this week, but I have to share the internet connection with 5 others, so sometimes, I'll be on but otherwise I might be completely unavailable. Therefore, probably not the right person for a leadership position.

1. I support Kwit as leader of our party.
2. As for the bodyguard role, I think that we should try to add some additional features. As we start debating it in the Congress we can always revise the bill if we think it won't pass. That also includes a random non-wolf provision.
3. As a presidential candidate, I think either Chubby or the next person down is the right person.

Hopefully I can maintain my internet connection for my afternoon training session.

[PackerFanatic]

I like the wording.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

NATIONAL WOLF SECURITY BILL

WHEREAS, our country is faced with a security threat from within in the guise of the so-called "Wolf Party":

BE IT RESOLVED:
The role of Bodyguard is hereby established. The Bodyguard may protect either him or herself or one other member of Congress from harm once per year. The Bodyguard may guard the same person in consecutive years if deemed necessary. The Bodyguard shall notify Chief Rum of who he or she intends to protect prior to passage of the daytime deadline.

Should the person under the Bodyguard's protection be attacked by wolves, there is a 25% chance that the attacker is killed by the Bodyguard. Should the attacker survive, there is a 25% chance that the identity of the attacker will become known to the Bodyguard.

The Bodyguard will be chosen randomly by divine providence (aka Chief Rum) from among the living Members of Congress who are not wolf party members.

How dies this look?

I like it. It expands the traditional BG role by just a little bit (allowing him to guard the same person on back to back nights).

Any other thoughts on this?

[chesapeake]

On the Speaker issue: does anyone have any objection to our party supporting Chubby for Speaker en masse?

[KWhit]

We also have to support a presidential candidate as well, right? Who would that be?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I like it. It expands the traditional BG role by just a little bit (allowing him to guard the same person on back to back nights).

Any other thoughts on this?

I likey.

This is another reason why I supported you for leader. More WW exp to see +/- in wording of stuff

Do we think 25% is good or should we try for more?

[PackerFanatic]

Did we settle on a liaison yet either? I don't think we have.

[PackerFanatic]

Maybe try bumping it up to 33%, but I think much more than that and CR will nix it.

[KWhit]

I can see 33% as still being acceptable.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by KWhit

We also have to support a presidential candidate as well, right? Who would that be?

If I'm supported as speaker then I'd say henry or packerfanatic depending on what they picked for their 1-5 thingy (popular vs powerful) As long as they both picked towards the popular spectrum then I'm happy with either of them since they are the two next most centrist.

[PackerFanatic]

I am more toward popular.

[PackerFanatic]

And I would support Chubby as Speaker.