jacob-Lundgren said:
What has that got to do with the Ministery of Health, Environment, and Social Services? Or MESA as it is currently called? I was asking why MESA is always thought of as the worst of the ministries to have. Not about the speaker.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What has that got to do with the Ministery of Health, Environment, and Social Services? Or MESA as it is currently called? I was asking why MESA is always thought of as the worst of the ministries to have. Not about the speaker.
Hi guys.
I haven't been on the Forums for a while, and reading this, I love Hawk's idea about Legeslatvite blocks.
I haven't been on the Forums for a while, and reading this, I love Hawk's idea about Legeslatvite blocks.
Beyond a rare minor medical event what was there for the MESA to react to? our economy is too weak to damage the environment or afford social services so that position isnt a very active one nor is there much political that can be done from there. IF some major bill were coming up similar to the alaska oil fields deal where there were economic and environmental concerns then MESA would be a happening placeAmric said:
The speaker example was that with politics fairly controlled right now there is little for the speaker to do, if the assembly were split evenly then the speaker would have a LOT more activity required.edit: its like sending a career soldier to guam in the middle of a shooting war on land somewheres
there is simply no action
Is advertising on external forums welcomed by the MOD team? Becuase maybe some other player could be brought from outside the Pdox pond...
I am glad to this discussion progressing. I certainly support the 100 seat uni-cameral legislature, as I suggested a version of it. If more than just the senior legislator (party leader or party whip) wanted to be active in the GA, then, then he shouldn't have to form a separate bloc, he could stay in the leader's bloc if he wished. If he wanted to form his own bloc, it should start as a bloc of one, and grow based on the activity and perceived support in that party.
As to ministers, which I would want to keep if possible, their being elected or appointed, the spectrum is multi-dimensional. At one corner is the US style system we have now, which is similar to the British system in that the Prime Minister appoints the cabinet, (although in bit the US and UK, the legislature must approve the appointments). The two other corners have elected ministers, the question is should it be by the people directly or by the legislature. Unless we want to have a lot of impeachments for inactivity and interim elections to fill vacancies, I think we should avoid direct popular elections for ministers, unless we had a enough players to elect vice-ministers as well. Having them elected by an expanded legislature would be interesting and acceptable, but I favor presidential or prime ministerial appointments of ministers.
I would favor having a prime minister over a president, but either would be fine. Since we seem to have some concensus in this direction, would the mods like to give signal and UMP could introduce sweeping consistutional ammendments?
As to ministers, which I would want to keep if possible, their being elected or appointed, the spectrum is multi-dimensional. At one corner is the US style system we have now, which is similar to the British system in that the Prime Minister appoints the cabinet, (although in bit the US and UK, the legislature must approve the appointments). The two other corners have elected ministers, the question is should it be by the people directly or by the legislature. Unless we want to have a lot of impeachments for inactivity and interim elections to fill vacancies, I think we should avoid direct popular elections for ministers, unless we had a enough players to elect vice-ministers as well. Having them elected by an expanded legislature would be interesting and acceptable, but I favor presidential or prime ministerial appointments of ministers.
I would favor having a prime minister over a president, but either would be fine. Since we seem to have some concensus in this direction, would the mods like to give signal and UMP could introduce sweeping consistutional ammendments?
Well if vacant minister seats are filled by a process, such as president/prime min appoints a interim and legislative votes aye/nay
A few thoughts:
1) A unicameral legislature still needs some sort of mod veto to keep things from going too far off base. What should that be? We have a few ideas at mod central, but we're not ready to reveal them yet. What are your ideas?
2) In the "retracted" version of Eutopia, where we focus on politics almost solely, it is likely that there will be a basic rule that all characters must be politicians first. No crime lords, probably no military officers (except for those that are grandfathered in), etc. What do people think of that? We'd probably create an "inscriptions" concept, like in the EU:M and 1558 games, where you apply for a character and must be approved by the mods first.
3) How would people react to a Constitutional Convention? Without going into detail about possible scenarios, would a kickoff where certain aspects of the Constitution - such as rights - are still under debate and can be changed by the new PCs be of interest?
Let's hear it, folks. And I am personally heartened to see the response we've gotten. Nice to know the players care about the game. Thanks.
1) A unicameral legislature still needs some sort of mod veto to keep things from going too far off base. What should that be? We have a few ideas at mod central, but we're not ready to reveal them yet. What are your ideas?
2) In the "retracted" version of Eutopia, where we focus on politics almost solely, it is likely that there will be a basic rule that all characters must be politicians first. No crime lords, probably no military officers (except for those that are grandfathered in), etc. What do people think of that? We'd probably create an "inscriptions" concept, like in the EU:M and 1558 games, where you apply for a character and must be approved by the mods first.
3) How would people react to a Constitutional Convention? Without going into detail about possible scenarios, would a kickoff where certain aspects of the Constitution - such as rights - are still under debate and can be changed by the new PCs be of interest?
Let's hear it, folks. And I am personally heartened to see the response we've gotten. Nice to know the players care about the game. Thanks.
Perhaps there could be room for the military. We could have the people in charge of the military, excluding the MDIS, as NPC's until there is dmonstrated a competence to handle itself. Lower-ranking officers (colonel-down) could be PC's.
The blocs could be autonomous, unless it is warranted by the mods, inwhich case they could play backbenchers.
The blocs could be autonomous, unless it is warranted by the mods, inwhich case they could play backbenchers.
Well as far as restricting it to politics, thats more a short term issue. Once the political heart of the game is firing on all cylinders again a few outreaches can happen again so long as they are centered around the web of politics and not trying to stretch the game.
As far as checks and balances go, if we have 100 seats 35ish-40ish can always be reserved for mods. They can pick a few small 1 issue parties or regional parties and those would "pledge" their support during elections. If 3-4 such parties existed with say 4-6 votes each with the rest going to actual parties then without a 2/3 majority players cant do the big changes as well as making it very difficult to pass laws that mods disprove of since only slightly over 1/2 are player controlled, and if the mods need to go a step further for some odd ball reasons they only need to have 11-16 player controled assembly members turn rogue on the bill and wont need to step on the players toes. Not that I think with the new conditions ANY bill that mods dislike will get 100% player support :rofl:
As far as checks and balances go, if we have 100 seats 35ish-40ish can always be reserved for mods. They can pick a few small 1 issue parties or regional parties and those would "pledge" their support during elections. If 3-4 such parties existed with say 4-6 votes each with the rest going to actual parties then without a 2/3 majority players cant do the big changes as well as making it very difficult to pass laws that mods disprove of since only slightly over 1/2 are player controlled, and if the mods need to go a step further for some odd ball reasons they only need to have 11-16 player controled assembly members turn rogue on the bill and wont need to step on the players toes. Not that I think with the new conditions ANY bill that mods dislike will get 100% player support :rofl:
And the mods could control the Judiciary, and control the legislature by declaring any rogue bill unconstitutional, like the US Supreme Court.
Btw, If there's a Eutopia 4, I'm not sticking around with the CUE, due to lack of activity. No one responds to anything I say, and there's no party representation with Esteva gone.
Btw, If there's a Eutopia 4, I'm not sticking around with the CUE, due to lack of activity. No one responds to anything I say, and there's no party representation with Esteva gone.
aussieboy, here's a better suggestion: Take control.
How do you think I became the leader of the center? When the old moderate party (and I mean old) collapsed, I just made myself leader, because there was no one to oppose me, and then for two terms or so I was in a two-man party with von Streusser, in his pre-mod days.
Then, after a few terms of staying in quasi-power by being the swing vote in every election, I had rebuilt my party...and then the nation collapsed.
But, the moral is the same.
I think I'm stealing a pre-mod Hajji Giray I quote when I say that you have to "wait until everyone else has declared they've no interest in leading...then lead!"
How do you think I became the leader of the center? When the old moderate party (and I mean old) collapsed, I just made myself leader, because there was no one to oppose me, and then for two terms or so I was in a two-man party with von Streusser, in his pre-mod days.
Then, after a few terms of staying in quasi-power by being the swing vote in every election, I had rebuilt my party...and then the nation collapsed.
But, the moral is the same.
I think I'm stealing a pre-mod Hajji Giray I quote when I say that you have to "wait until everyone else has declared they've no interest in leading...then lead!"
Phalanx said:
Not that it ever worked particularly well for Charles Scott Morgan, but the ideal's still there.
Back like a bad penny. Quick comments on a few issues:
(1) Rejoining the game
(2) Parties and elections
That said, I agree that the party system may actually be too tightly controlled at the moment, and that the more-or-less-three-parties-system that has developed since the restart misses some of the colour of the older party systems (it certainly misses much of the fun of wheeling and dea... err, coaliton-building). At the same time, a return to a party system that is in constant flux may not be the best thing either.
All of which is to say, to the extent that we can control the contours of the party system via registration and election rules, how about returning to a (modified) version of the older system:
(a) do away with the current party foundation process (which requires a minimum level of player interest before the party can even get founded, let alone run in elections);
(b) require parties to have at least two bona fide (and active) members to be allowed to run in elections;
(c) modify the current mathematical procedure for translating actual (player) votes into fictional votes, so it doesn't disadvantage the smaller parties quite as much;
(d) impose a 5%-7% threshold in parliamentary elections (parties need to get at least 5%-7% of votes in order to get any seats).
(3) Ministerial elections
Personally, I quite like the idea of electing Ministers directly (i.e., by popular vote), but let me throw out a few points for consideration.
(a) In-game considerations
One of the reasons I like the idea of directly elected Ministries is the possibility of heightened conflict (and hence entertainment value) within the government. However, this could also be a downside: more conflict could lead to stagnation, as Cabinet could get bogged down in in-fighting.
On the other hand, directly elected Ministries could lead to more consensus and compromise, as Cabinet members who are from different parties will need to find some sort of modus vivendi. Positive, in the sense that Cabinet policy isn't monopolized by one party. Negative, in the sense that Cabinet policy isn't monopolized by one party - i.e., there could be a greater risk of stagnation, not only from too much in-fighting (see above), but also from too much compromise.
(b) Game mechanical considerations
On the plus-side, having Ministers elected by direct popular vote would have two consequences: one, Party A doesn't get locked out of government completely if they just lose a single election (the presidential one); after all, they could still win a Ministerial election. In other words, all those players who happened to support the "wrong" presidential candidate may still end up having a hand in government, which may maintain their interest in the game for the two RL months or so they are in opposition. Two, Ministerial candidates have already shown an interest in the job (else, why run?), so we'd end up with individuals who are dedicated to the position (see below, though).
On the downside, having directly elected Ministries could reduce the fun factor involved in elections by reducing the stakes involved. At the moment, governmental elections are winner-takes-all - if Party A loses the presidential race, they are out for good (at least in theory). Having five separate popular Ministerial elections is a dramatic move away from that model - which may be good in terms of maintaining player interest (see above), but may also have the effect of diminishing the thrill of an election.
Also, having meaningful Ministerial elections may require a more substantial active player-base; e.g., with the current set-up of five Cabinet positions, we'd really need at least ten players running for Ministries in order to have reasonably competitive elections. That's one problem. A second is that some Ministries, for whatever reason, don't attract a whole lot of player interest (see Amric's observations on MESA). Having to find at least two credibly dedicated candidates for those positions could exacerbate the problem. Thirdly, if a player elected to a Ministry can no longer play that role, they would have to be replaced in a process that's likely a good deal more complicated than the current one.
Where am I going with this? I have no idea. Like I said, only something to consider.
To complicate things further (just because I can), how about this set-up (again, not endorsing it, just throwing it out): Ministers are elected by Parliament; however, Ministries are distributed proportionally - i.e., if Party A gets 40% of seats in Parliament, it is entitled to 40% of the Ministries. To add a bit of spice, parties would be able to pick which Ministry they want, following a picking order based on their percentage of seats. E.g., Party A, being the largest party at 40%, gets to pick one Minister first; Party B, at 38%, goes second; Party C, at 12% goes third. Lather, rinse, repeat, until all Ministries are filled.
(4) Ministers generally
I also like the idea of increasing the number of Ministries (I believe someone mentioned that). One idea the GM bandied about during the redesign for E3 was actually to increase the number of Ministries to ten or so, but reserve about half of them (or fewer, depending on the gameplay situation) for (mostly inactive) NPCs. This would reduce the workload associated with being a Minister, and it would perhaps allow for a better fit between the interests of individual players and individual Ministries.
(5) Parliament
Just on a semantic note, though, I'd feel distinctly uncomfortable with the term "bloc leader." I know it's just meant as a descriptive placeholder term, and it may be my German sensibilities speaking, but to me, the term has distinctive concentration camp associations. "Senior legislator" sounds like a good alternative.
(6) Game focus
Quick comments on a few issues:(1) Rejoining the game
I can't speak for anyone else, but September isn't really in the cards for me. I don't know when my current RL workload will subside, but I do know that it won't let up before October.unclebryan said:
(2) Parties and elections
The purpose behind imposing steeper hurdles on parties before they can run for office in E3 was to curtail some of the (sometimes rather extreme) flux in Eutopia's party system, and specifically to prevent single-member-ego-booster-parties from popping up one day and folding the next on a regular basis. I think some measure of stability in the party system is good for the game, so it's a feature that I'd like to see retained (just speaking for myself here).jacob-Lundgren said:
That said, I agree that the party system may actually be too tightly controlled at the moment, and that the more-or-less-three-parties-system that has developed since the restart misses some of the colour of the older party systems (it certainly misses much of the fun of wheeling and dea... err, coaliton-building). At the same time, a return to a party system that is in constant flux may not be the best thing either.
All of which is to say, to the extent that we can control the contours of the party system via registration and election rules, how about returning to a (modified) version of the older system:
(a) do away with the current party foundation process (which requires a minimum level of player interest before the party can even get founded, let alone run in elections);
(b) require parties to have at least two bona fide (and active) members to be allowed to run in elections;
(c) modify the current mathematical procedure for translating actual (player) votes into fictional votes, so it doesn't disadvantage the smaller parties quite as much;
(d) impose a 5%-7% threshold in parliamentary elections (parties need to get at least 5%-7% of votes in order to get any seats).
(3) Ministerial elections
Personally, I quite like the idea of electing Ministers directly (i.e., by popular vote), but let me throw out a few points for consideration.
(a) In-game considerations
One of the reasons I like the idea of directly elected Ministries is the possibility of heightened conflict (and hence entertainment value) within the government. However, this could also be a downside: more conflict could lead to stagnation, as Cabinet could get bogged down in in-fighting.
On the other hand, directly elected Ministries could lead to more consensus and compromise, as Cabinet members who are from different parties will need to find some sort of modus vivendi. Positive, in the sense that Cabinet policy isn't monopolized by one party. Negative, in the sense that Cabinet policy isn't monopolized by one party
- i.e., there could be a greater risk of stagnation, not only from too much in-fighting (see above), but also from too much compromise.(b) Game mechanical considerations
On the plus-side, having Ministers elected by direct popular vote would have two consequences: one, Party A doesn't get locked out of government completely if they just lose a single election (the presidential one); after all, they could still win a Ministerial election. In other words, all those players who happened to support the "wrong" presidential candidate may still end up having a hand in government, which may maintain their interest in the game for the two RL months or so they are in opposition. Two, Ministerial candidates have already shown an interest in the job (else, why run?), so we'd end up with individuals who are dedicated to the position (see below, though).
On the downside, having directly elected Ministries could reduce the fun factor involved in elections by reducing the stakes involved. At the moment, governmental elections are winner-takes-all - if Party A loses the presidential race, they are out for good (at least in theory
). Having five separate popular Ministerial elections is a dramatic move away from that model - which may be good in terms of maintaining player interest (see above), but may also have the effect of diminishing the thrill of an election.Also, having meaningful Ministerial elections may require a more substantial active player-base; e.g., with the current set-up of five Cabinet positions, we'd really need at least ten players running for Ministries in order to have reasonably competitive elections. That's one problem. A second is that some Ministries, for whatever reason, don't attract a whole lot of player interest (see Amric's observations on MESA). Having to find at least two credibly dedicated candidates for those positions could exacerbate the problem. Thirdly, if a player elected to a Ministry can no longer play that role, they would have to be replaced in a process that's likely a good deal more complicated than the current one.
Where am I going with this? I have no idea.
Like I said, only something to consider.To complicate things further (just because I can
), how about this set-up (again, not endorsing it, just throwing it out): Ministers are elected by Parliament; however, Ministries are distributed proportionally - i.e., if Party A gets 40% of seats in Parliament, it is entitled to 40% of the Ministries. To add a bit of spice, parties would be able to pick which Ministry they want, following a picking order based on their percentage of seats. E.g., Party A, being the largest party at 40%, gets to pick one Minister first; Party B, at 38%, goes second; Party C, at 12% goes third. Lather, rinse, repeat, until all Ministries are filled.(4) Ministers generally
I actually like that.jacob-Lundgren said:
I also like the idea of increasing the number of Ministries (I believe someone mentioned that). One idea the GM bandied about during the redesign for E3 was actually to increase the number of Ministries to ten or so, but reserve about half of them (or fewer, depending on the gameplay situation) for (mostly inactive) NPCs. This would reduce the workload associated with being a Minister, and it would perhaps allow for a better fit between the interests of individual players and individual Ministries.
(5) Parliament
I'll echo the feeling of most people here: I wouldn't be a huge fan of that. Granted, the legislature hasn't been what it's supposed to be for a long time, but I think we should try a couple more reforms before throwing it out. Baby, bathwater and all that.The_Hawk said:
I like.The_Hawk said:
Just on a semantic note, though, I'd feel distinctly uncomfortable with the term "bloc leader." I know it's just meant as a descriptive placeholder term, and it may be my German sensibilities speaking, but to me, the term has distinctive concentration camp associations. "Senior legislator" sounds like a good alternative.
Backbenchers defecting from their faction?Voshkod said:
(6) Game focus
Sounds good to me.Voshkod said:
Last edited:
Are you saying that will shall take all the social parts out of the game because that is one of the reasons I chose Eutopia over the other RPG's on this forum as it is really quite easy to get into, their is no waiting for a mod to PM you back also to me Eutopia seemed much easier to understand and seeing as our current problem is a lack of players should'nt we be aiming at a way to get people in and keep them in through a user friendly way.
aussieboy said:
The military has always been problematic in Eutopia. If it is still a permissible career, we probably will limit PCs to lower (non-strategic) ranks. Nothing's decided yet.
j-l said:
Agreed. If we go the retraction route, the primary goal is to get the political game moving well enough that the other stuff doesn't distract. Mel and heagarty and speak to this better than I, but I believe that in Eutopia 1, for example, there was Brewtopia, the official (and only) bar for social interaction, and other stuff grew out of that.
Mel said:
Do any such systems exist in the world? If so, we'll take a look at their Constitutions to see how they do it.
Cestius111 said:
The social parts will never be extracted completely; they're an important part of the game, and they do set Eutopia out from many other games. Regarding inscriptions, I don't think most people would have to wait long for mod approval. The majority of characters should be easy to approve; it's the odd ones (I want to play a crime lord who corruptly got elected to Parliment - I want to be a rebel leader) will cause issues.
A few things will probably go away entirely, if we go this route. No coups or rebellions, for example. They're more trouble then they're worth.
What I could see is each player having an "Office" thread, where they can meet and conspire with other PCs on political matters, and issue "Press Releases" discussing their recent activities, or attacking their opponents. There would be some social places - the cigar bar, the brew pub, that sort of thing - for RP outside of the political realm.
Again, everything is still preliminary.
How would the mods retain their veto of wayward legislation? Every PC in the GA gets one vote, so the mods would have a majority until we get to 51 PCs, so back bench defections (on one vote only) would be the way.
Should we have a constitutional convention? I seems like we are having one here. Should we move this IC and in-game, or do the mods just want to write everything (unlikely)? The in-game process already started with the OFFER meeting at CAFTA, the question is can we come up with something that would plausibly appeal to St. Esprit and/or Tilapia, or will they continue to jealously guard their independence in Eutopia 4? If these changes would make possible some sort of renunification, perhaps partial, or some other in-game benefit then it would seem more worthwhile for the typical politician to support sweeping changes. If not, would it plausible for O'Floinn, the probable next president and Loic to support this, as they have an inside track to power under the current arrangement. Phalanx appears to and I do, as players support the changes, but would our characters?
Should we have a constitutional convention? I seems like we are having one here. Should we move this IC and in-game, or do the mods just want to write everything (unlikely)? The in-game process already started with the OFFER meeting at CAFTA, the question is can we come up with something that would plausibly appeal to St. Esprit and/or Tilapia, or will they continue to jealously guard their independence in Eutopia 4? If these changes would make possible some sort of renunification, perhaps partial, or some other in-game benefit then it would seem more worthwhile for the typical politician to support sweeping changes. If not, would it plausible for O'Floinn, the probable next president and Loic to support this, as they have an inside track to power under the current arrangement. Phalanx appears to and I do, as players support the changes, but would our characters?
Each PC has onevote, and usually the bloc he represents (say, 10 or 20 NPC's) will side with him. But the mods can change the voting pattern depending on what is happening. Also, To make the game more interesting, we can have only MGA elections, and the head of the Executive elected in Parliament. It would make for some heated debate.
I think we should continue to directly elect the executive branch.
Sure, an election in the legislature would bring some interesting debate, but it would destroy the element of mystery that makes electoral politics so interesting. If we've already had legislative elections, you already know exactly how many votes each party has, and how many you need to get your candidate elected. No mystery, no surprise.
And, now that Mel brings up the number of players required for proper ministerial elections, maybe it isn't the best idea. However, if we don't go with directly elected ministers, I don't think the executive branch should undergo any drastic change.
The change to the legislature will free up enough players that we can: 1) Have deputy ministers again and 2) Actually replace inactive ministers because not every player is already in government. This in itself could be enough to get rid of the widespread cabinet activity that's been so prevelent.
Vosh, for an example, didn't Hawk say they did something like that in Florida?
Sure, an election in the legislature would bring some interesting debate, but it would destroy the element of mystery that makes electoral politics so interesting. If we've already had legislative elections, you already know exactly how many votes each party has, and how many you need to get your candidate elected. No mystery, no surprise.
And, now that Mel brings up the number of players required for proper ministerial elections, maybe it isn't the best idea. However, if we don't go with directly elected ministers, I don't think the executive branch should undergo any drastic change.
The change to the legislature will free up enough players that we can: 1) Have deputy ministers again and 2) Actually replace inactive ministers because not every player is already in government. This in itself could be enough to get rid of the widespread cabinet activity that's been so prevelent.
Vosh, for an example, didn't Hawk say they did something like that in Florida?
Perhaps we should also rearrange the ministries. I think Frans Truman proposed this shortly after the Term 11 elections.
We should also allow some players who are intrested to form insurgencies, so that MIDA has a lot more to do.