Changes

[unmerged(1522)]

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that we're already rekindling Mel's interest?

Interest? Who, me? *whistles non-committally and slinks away into the night*



Seriously, I'll be here (sporadically) till July 6, so I may add my two cents every now and then. After that point, it's retirement for me, at least for a while.

Similarly, Mel's Fragmentation plan (Fragmentopia?) would probably involve a lot more foreign-affairs work for us, as suddenly we have even more states to keep track of.

Good point, and one that - for obvious reasons - I certainly sympathize with. I think the workload coming with "Fragmentopia" may depend a bit on how it's done, though - specifically, it would make a difference if mods simulated all new countries along the lines of Tilapia and St. Esprit (work-intensive), or more along the lines of in-game Burkina Faso (not so much).

I see that, once again, Eutopia's French-speaking minority is woefully underrepresented and marginalized by Anglo-centric parties. Thus, I hereby announce the foundation of the

Parti Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose

We will actively consider the possibility of a cross-national alliance with the Change is Illusory Party (ChIP).

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Perhaps the tightning of party election abilities didnt help? with minister elections it might be best to allow 1-2 person parties to run for non-presidential position, or if it goes to a parliament type they cant run for head there or any other kind of government, just the ministers and lowering ranking parliament/assembly spots. that way people can create more parties and we get back to the fun of coalition governments

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Would Mel and Heagarty, as players, not mods, as they have done more than their share of work as mods, be sufficient to get us back up to the critical mass at which Eutopia 3 be a self-sustaining reaction? It might be if, as a result, EstonianZulu, Erc, and Amric were re-energized. I understand that they are not ready to do so at this time, but perhaps it could be arranged or coordinated as, say, the day after (US) Labor Day, September 6th. Since time is fluid in Eutopia, we could stretch out the current Term, and have the CRO Term XII election announcement appear on that day. (No I am not doing this so Loic can have the longest Presidency, it would still only be three years, what with the 'server is busy', the forum being down, and the hiatus of Hajji and von Streusser, it is probably only appropriate anyway.) In the meantime we could run in semi-vacation mode, players posting as much as they wish, mods responding when approrpriate at their convenience, but with the understanding that players be encouraged not to engage in activities that require extended dialogues with the mods (like the current Hussein v. NAPED case before the Federal Tribunal, but that was a loose end from Term IX). The voting in Term XII and in the future, should be skewed to favor people who recruit new reasonably active players, so who ever recruited recent arrival Franz Ferdinand, if he becomes active (to be defined), their vote would count double in the next election.

Obviously this depends on willing future participation from the key players, so it is up to them to breathe life into this idea or not, as they wish.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

I will definetly have more time/interest later this summer but class just ended shortly ago summer just started and bad mojo family wise came up.

 

[aussieboy]

Perhaps we should restart, including in the background something in Eutopia similar to the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, where after election wrangling, a new regime is in Eutopia. Meanwhile, in Tilapia, a military regime has taken power, and the democratic government in St. Espirit has a tenouous hold on power. The proposed commonwealth is in the backburner, while even more seperatist groups are using armed force.

Eutopia would be in chaos.

That is my proposal.

As for the membership, I believe we should do something about that. But I do not know what.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I think it's well established that I'm against wiping any game history or radically changing the background.

Of course, that opinion means nothing until I propose something else to achieve the goal. So here it is:

Ministers are directly elected. One of them is elected Prime Minister, and basically just presides at cabinet meetings. The PM has very limited powers, and can't remove ministers on his own, but he can request that the legislature do it. If a Minister is removed, resigns, or dies, the PM nominates his replacement, who must then be approved by the legislature.

I'd also suggest we change the allocation of jobs in the ministries, but that's a more technical note.

I also think we should consider reducing the GA to 7 members, but otherwise leave it as it is.

These changes should eliminate the trend towards presidential dictatorship that we've been experiencing, as well as make elections vastly more interesting.

I'm thinking we could bring back the thrill of coalition governments. The early terms were my favorite, and those were the terms of the coalitions.

Anyway, it's an idea.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

I would support Phalanx's suggestion. What is better is that we could even do it in game. If the mods as senate would go along, Phalanx could lead the UMP supermajority to pass the necessary constitutional amendment.

 

[Amric]

Amric has been EXTREMELY busy lately, and that isn't going to change in the immediate future. This is the busy season in the flooring business. It is not a lack of interest on my part, but a complete lack of time to devote to the game as a complete 100 percent presence. Even as a minor presence I have had some great impact with little tidbits and the ability to foment jobs being created.

But the ability to be as incredibly active as UB has been this term is just not possible for me at this time. Which is one of the reasons I have tried to stay out of government work in Eutopia for the moment. It isn't fair to the electorate<voters> for me to be warming a seat somewhere and not actually DO any work. Goes against my personal principles, let alone my characters.

Now I am opposed to wiping out characters with a restart. I have invested nearly 2 years of time<real time> on Amric and created a LOT of stuff here and I would PURELY hate to have to do it all over again with a massive restart. I would prefer some kind of retooling, ala what Phalanx suggested. As for getting new players. Well, the biggest problem is that Eutopia can be VERY intimidating for a newcomer. Especially if they don't bother to take the time to lurk for a few weeks to see how things work and don't take the time to read the readme's and the other information that makes Eutopia make a lot more sense.

Believe me when I first started I had been lurking for two MONTHS before I dived in. I researched. Followed every thread<and believe me that was a tremendous task in and of itself!>. Read the readme's. Read the history of EUtopia. Figured out how the parties worked and how the government worked. Found a niche my character could go into and have never really looked back. Now I am a sought after elder statesman who people still periodically like to consult about things.

Why? Because even as a not extremely active member, I still produce quite a bit of information and help and stuff for others to interact with. And when I was active, and T Hawk, Phalanx, Erc, Josephus, and others can testify I can produce SCADS of pages of stuff. My election campaigns are legendary, all the way back to when Barkeep49's character ran for President.

But being prolific is only useful if others interact with you. Which in those days they did. I am sure this could still happen. If we had more players. How to get them? Chain someone to a computer and make them learn Eutopia until they are brainwashed? Maybe. I just don't know...

 

[aussieboy]

Perhaps we should restart it, and add a little more background.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

More background?

Eutopia already has more history than your average player has the time or desire to learn. Adding a giant history book won't attract more active players.

 

[The_Hawk]

Without stifling other conversation, let me throw out a question. How would you folks feel if we abolished, or substantially reduced, the role of the legislature in the game?

I ask because one of the most consistent complaints over the years has been a lack of activity in the legislature, and while this Term has shown a pleasant change, that progress has begun faltering of late. I am given to wonder if the legislature isn't like the budget -- everyone feels we need one because it just seems necessary in a political sim, but ultimately the drudgery of drafting and debating it isn't a widely popular pursuit among the playerbase.

Is that an accurate perception? How would you guys feel about no legislature, or a legislature with a much-reduced role?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

When you say no legislature....do you mean no player controlled legislature, or just an outright lack of legislature?

 

[The_Hawk]

When you say no legislature....do you mean no player controlled legislature, or just an outright lack of legislature?

Let's assume either are possibilities, but that an NPC-controlled legislature is more likely than no legislature at all.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

While I'm thinking....

If we had a mod controlled legislature (we could make it one house and longer terms so that elections wouldnt be as much of a hassle) and made it so the Ministers proposed legislation and the legislature just voted on it, I think this could work out nicely along with my proposal.

 

[Erc]

I'm of the complete opposite tack here...

I believe that the legislature can work if we make it important. That is...go to a full parliamentary system, ministers can be GA-members only, the PM takes on the duties currently fulfilled by the President...forcing the PM to work with the legislature, making the legislature mean something (especially since the PM's out without a vote of confidence), making politics continue throughout the term and not just during elections [as, nine times out of ten, no party would have overall control].

We don't need to get rid of the legislature (or make it mod-controlled, which is essentially the same thing), if it can be effectively merged with the Cabinet.

Now, I know this steps on everyone's little pet idea of having elected Ministers...but if the Parliament is small enough (and, more likely than not, there is coalition government), you have to pick Ministers you don't like on occasion.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Drafting legislation is fun, for me anyway, but others, including some very active participants, do seem to be put off by it. With a mod run legislature, the ministers could just put forward an idea, and the mods could draft it? I don't think that will be popular with the mods.

One reason why activity in the legislature is limited could be the limited ability to influence other legislators, not of your party. I would support Erc's suggestion. I would also suggest a variation. Every player in a party would be in an expanded GA, but the number of seats would be 60 or 100, so most of the MGA would not be PC, but NPCs instead. There could even be some minor parties without any PCs. The elections would allocate the seats per party, and mods could chime in to the GA debate when they wished, as one of the back-benchers. When it came time vote on the bills, the mods could, if they wished, have the back benchers cross party lines and vote their conscience, or follow party lines as instructed by the party leaders/whips. This would keep mod control of legislation (currently provided by the Senate), yet have a chance for good debate to sway the outcome.

 

[Josephus I]

I don' t know. I think really that this game is all about the legislature. Remove it, and what do you have left really?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I agree having one is important, but can we really think of it as wise to invest even more in the legislature when it's got an average activity of slightly higher than zero?

 

[unmerged(41776)]

Drafting legislation is fun, for me anyway, but others, including some very active participants, do seem to be put off by it. With a mod run legislature, the ministers could just put forward an idea, and the mods could draft it? I don't think that will be popular with the mods.

One reason why activity in the legislature is limited could be the limited ability to influence other legislators, not of your party. I would support Erc's suggestion. I would also suggest a variation. Every player in a party would be in an expanded GA, but the number of seats would be 60 or 100, so most of the MGA would not be PC, but NPCs instead. There could even be some minor parties without any PCs. The elections would allocate the seats per party, and mods could chime in to the GA debate when they wished, as one of the back-benchers. When it came time vote on the bills, the mods could, if they wished, have the back benchers cross party lines and vote their conscience, or follow party lines as instructed by the party leaders/whips. This would keep mod control of legislation (currently provided by the Senate), yet have a chance for good debate to sway the outcome.

I like this idea a lot and I also like the idea of going to a more parlimentary system and coalition governments. I think it would be good if we could influence the GA but we wouldn't know exactly how the votes would go. Plus, if some of the MGA were NPCs then inactive players wouldn't hurt as much. Also having NPCs in the MGA would let the parties know they have members even when the PC members drop off the face of the earth, er, Eutopia.

 

[The_Hawk]

I agree having one is important, but can we really think of it as wise to invest even more in the legislature when it's got an average activity of slightly higher than zero?

This is sort of my feeling about the matter; the legislature has, traditionally, been important, and has had the opportunity to do a lot of stuff in-game, which opportunity has, by and large, been squandered. Most bills which come up for debate don't seek to solve the wide-ranging problems which are generally what the NEWSLINK events are about, but rather whatever happens to interest the character who's proposing the bill. (Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong or unrealistic about this; I expect most bills before the U.S. Congress are similarly parochial.) The trouble is that the actual problems which the legislature ought to be dealing with rarely make the agenda, and oftentimes even if there's political will to deal with a problem, it simply can't be resolved because of a lack of GA activity.

(For new players, this critique is best aimed at earlier terms; as mentioned, this term has been pretty good in terms of activity. In the past, though, we have had difficulty maintaining an active enough assembly to even make a quorum, let alone propose and pass legislation.)

All that said, my personal ideal solution (and it should be reiterated that the opinions here are mine, not those of the ModCorps as a whole) would not be to abolish the legislature entirely, or turn it into the province of the mods. Rather, it would be to, much like UB suggested, expand it. Each party would then have a 'bloc leader' (or possibly more than one, for particularly large/active parties) that spoke for a large number of NPC legislators. This would not be an absolute ability, and the mods could have legislators break from the bloc if the bloc leader's intended vote seemed to stray from party principles, or would prove harmful to the legislators' constituents.

In other words, players who enjoy legislating would still have the opportunity to do so, but it would not be incumbent on the parties to constantly keep seats filled with a particular number of active legislators. It might also be helpful to allow members of the executive to propose legislation themselves (presumably through NPC legislators.)

Any thoughts on those ideas?