Read: Changes in Game Operation

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
Do we have to rank all the candidates? I think it would be better if we did.

At the moment, I'm inclined to leave it up to the individual voter to decide how many candidates they want to rank-order. Of course, it'd still be in the best interest of a voter to rank-order all candidates (to avoid an "exhausted ballot"; see the second paragraph here for an explanation of the concept).

But if people would prefer a system where voters *have* to rank-order all presidential candidates, that'd be fine by me as well.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

(16) On reflection, items 8 and 9 probably wouldn't save as much admin time as I initially thought; since that is the case, they are primarily an issue of streamlining in-game processes rather than streamlining game administration. Consequently, those two changes won't be implemented by GM-fiat. In other words, disregard items 8 and 9 (although they may be taken up in-game in the future... ).

 

[unmerged(10397)]

that's good to hear about 8. I never really understood what you were plotting for 9 anyway.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

I have to say that I'm frustrated by the idea that independents would be allowed to run. I felt Elijah had kind of plateau as a character and so I created a new one, but that's just a personal gripe.

My real concern is won't this encourage the sort of problems that the first Eutopia saw in terms of every man his own party? Party weakness, as I understand it, was one of the major problems with that incarnation of the game.

As for floating votes, could we say perhaps 1/2 as many as were cast? I think having an equal amount in many ways takes teh election too far out of player's hands. I think this could be a positive thing, but with 1:1 could exacerbate the problem I mentioned in the last paragraph.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Also I really strongly feel that having character in signature should satisify rule #1.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Barkeep49
I have to say that I'm frustrated by the idea that independents would be allowed to run. [...] My real concern is won't this encourage the sort of problems that the first Eutopia saw in terms of every man his own party?

I'm aware of the potential problem and haven't made a final decisison whether to implement that change yet. However, please note that the "3 player votes minimum" hurdle would apply to independents as well. Actually, I may increase that to 4 across the board; need to think about it a bit more...

Also I really strongly feel that having character in signature should satisify rule #1.

See previous posts for my position on that issue.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
(16) On reflection, items 8 and 9 probably wouldn't save as much admin time as I initially thought; since that is the case, they are primarily an issue of streamlining in-game processes rather than streamlining game administration. Consequently, those two changes won't be implemented by GM-fiat. In other words, disregard items 8 and 9 (although they may be taken up in-game in the future... ).

Good idea. I think the Deputies HELP the game by filling in when the Ministers are absent. Players being away for extended periods is probably the worst unsolvable problem the simulation has. This, at least, keeps things rolling .

 

[unmerged(286)]

Joy!

*cancels military coup*

...erm, j/k.

 

[Craig Ashley]

I like the floating votes system. Gives a little more reason to campaign, since before there was very little doubt to most elections.

I think the criteria for assigning votes should be based on a few things:

1.) Campaign activity level. The harder you campaign, the more votes you potentially can earn.

2.) Performance in last term. What did the party campaign on last term? Did they live up to their campaign promises? Did they take an active role in government? (even opposition parties and unelected players can be active in government with a little effort) How well did they respond to emergencies or unexpected events? (Game events)

3.) And I know this may be a bit controversial. Party platform. Simply put, the GM should be able to decide if the party is mainstream or fringe. Fringe parties should have a cap on how many phantom votes they can earn. The simple fact is, no matter how hard they campaign, no mattrer how active and responsive they are, fringe parties can only attract so many people. That's generally why they are called fringe parties.

Now in times of upheaval and chaos, fringe parties may see that cap removed, and even get a bonus for being seen as alternatives to the mainstream. (to simulate the true historical potential for the rise of fringe parties to power i.e. the Nazis)

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Good suggestions; I'm sure Blade! will take them into account (provided he's okay with the floating votes idea).

On a different note, I decided we need a symbol for our national currency; I put it up a second ago in the National Archives. If you don't want to go look there, it's (tada) Ð.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

How do we make the symbol? Great idea btw Mel.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Barkeep49
How do we make the symbol? Great idea btw Mel.

Check under multinational symbols in a word processing programme; if it's not there, just copy it from here or the Archives.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

(17) Not really a change in game operation, but: I've decided to move the Constitution out of the Guide; I think it makes more sense to keep them separate. I also cleaned up the Constitution in the process (if you think anything got lost, let me know), and decided to rename Parliament to "National Assembly." One of the positive outcomes is that there won't be any more confusion between MP (party) and MP (member of Parliament), since the latter are now called MNA.

 

[Kurek]

National Assembly eh? Hmmm Colonel David Haynes MDA... hmm

 

[unmerged(1522)]

(18) More constitutional stuff (should be done now, I hope): (a) clarified that presidential bills also need to be seconded to be put to a vote; (b) stuck in a section on Assembly roll-calls (it's in the Guide, but it can't hurt to put it in the Constitution as well); (c) added Part H. (Budget), since players seemed unclear on who is responsible for what or how it's supposed to work.

 

[Blade!]

Slowly reading, and catching up, I dropped off the planet for a few days. Glad to see you here Mel.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Blade!
Glad to see you here Mel.

Thanks. Watch out world, we have two GMs again! Ah, the havoc we will be able to wreak! Hehehe.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Brief breakdown of how the new election system for the National Assembly (Parliament) would work...

Step 1: players cast votes (one per player).
Step 2: player votes are tallied; any party receiving fewer that four votes will be disregarded from here on, as will any votes cast for them.
Step 3: a list of all parties that received four votes or more is forwarded to Blade!.
Step 4: Blade! assigns a number of additional (floating) votes to parties based on their performance; the total number of floating votes will probably equal the total number of player votes cast for parties that met the threshold.
Step 5: a party's player votes and floating votes are added together into their overall vote.
Step 6: Assembly seats are distributed among parties based on their overall votes.

Example:
Step 1: votes are cast.
Step 2: Party A gets 7 votes, Party B 6, Party C 4, Party D 3 and Party E 2, one vote is invalid (total player votes: 23). Parties D and E are disregarded.
Step 3: Parties A, B and C are forwarded to Blade! to assign additional votes to.
Step 4: Blade! assigns a total of 17 additional votes (let's say Party A gets 5, Party B 5, and Party C 7).
Step 5: overall party votes: Party A = 7+5 = 12, Party B = 6+5 = 11 votes, Party C = 4+7 = 11 votes.
Step 6: Seat distribution is based on the total overall party votes (here: 34). In this example, each party gets four seats.

 

[hughbartlett]

well thats a bit unfair. I doubt the ELP will get four votes in te upcoming election, so even if I remain an active member of parliament and the community, there is no chance of a flaoating vote?

Perhaps we could have less floating votes, but make them before the cutoff?

Hugh Bartlett, MNA

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Perhaps any party which doesn't meet the four vote threshold has its floating votes halved to what it normally would be?