Wantuni Never-Ending Dictatorship

[catparty]

It would also be a good idea to designate some countries as being more newbie friendly (where such tactics would not be permitted), so as to have a place to direct new players to. That way, the game would be more able to hold onto new players, rather than scaring them off unnecessarily.

[EEL123]

I don't think that it's a tactic that should be encouraged (except as a part of RP), but if it's legal, it's legal, and surely it's not bad enough to warrant a ban.

[EEL123]

It would also be a good idea to designate some countries as being more newbie friendly (where such tactics would not be permitted), so as to have a place to direct new players to. That way, the game would be more able to hold onto new players, rather than scaring them off unnecessarily.

I feel inclined to agree. The problem I can see, though, would be that some new players might be put off by what could be perceived as condescending paternalism.

[Aquinas]

I understand what Aquinas is saying, and others, but the fact is that it isn't illegal and that's that.

It isn't illegal, but it is - at least to many of us - unorthodox. Particracy is meant to be about roleplaying a political party in a national parliament that gets to vote on legislation and stuff. The tactic Zanz is using manipulates the game mechanism in order to prevent players from getting their parties into the parliament to do any of that. There are many forum-based games where you can roleplay dictatorships. Why bother to use the Particracy game engine to play a one-party dictatorship where every election and every parliamentary vote is meaningless because only one party is ever in control? Particracy is designed to be about multi-party democracies, not North Korea style dictatorships. As the introductory text reads:

Particracy is a political simulation game where the player takes on the role of a political party in a fictional nation. Players propose and vote on legislation, form cabinets, determine economic policy and join international treaties as they compete for votes with other political parties in their nation. The opinions of voters in each nation is measured on a wide variety of opinions, meaning every region and every nation is unique, and constantly changing. Will your nation be a free market paradise or a socialist utopia? Only the voters will decide.

I agree with you that, at a time when so many player slots in nations are empty, one or two players blocking access to national legislatures ought not (in theory) do too much harm to the game (so long as it is carefully/considerately managed). However, it is unorthodox - it goes against the spirit of the game. Most players who come up against it recognise intuitively that it is a form of cheating. If this way of playing becomes more widespread, then it will become more of a problem as more nations get blocked up by it. It appears to me that Zanz is openly popularising this way of playing by calling for other players and nations to do lots of roleplay with him. Surely I'm not the only one who can see that if roleplaying with Zanz's Wantuni becomes popular, then it won't be long until other players start imitating him and doing the same thing in other nations? And where will it all end?

Zanz, I've considered that I've been too harsh on you on this thread, and I apologise, as I probably have. I actually admire you in a way because you are trying to be innovative, going against the grain, and I can see that you're very positive and enthusiastic about what you are doing. But what I have to ask you is...in the long-run, is this going to work? Remember also that as a Moderator, at times you are likely to find yourself in situations where you need to call on other players to show restraint and sensitivity. Will this task not be made more difficult for you if you are perceived to be playing the game in such a controversial way?

I'm sorry if I'm sounding horrible...but I feel these points need to be made.

[IdioC]

The perpetuation of these states are a problem that was around when Pax Cynica was being drafted and a thorn in the side of legislating long before it; perhaps the oldest IC/OOC issue Particracy ever had.

The game rules permitted it, as well as treaty lockdowns to further prevent visibility, but a party with total control of legislature and ability to do it would probably attempt it in real life. The game system permits these things and, as ever, "The System [Came] First".

This was always totally unfair in an OOC regard, as players new to the game get put off, as we've seen. However, if the practice was banned even though possible in the game mechanics - it is effectively a total victory in the game nation and perhaps an aim for some players - the intervention would be a precedent for moderation going against game mechanics; moderation would end fighting the system they volunteer to police, based on the opinions of the time. It is a cruel consequence of dictatorships that only one other party is present and so the nation looks very enticing to newcomers on paper.

The only hard solution that ever crossed my mind in the day, within existing mechanics, was for treaty-locked nations to have something written in the nation name ([DICTATOR] or something in the heading). However, new players could be actually enticed into the nation to fight off the dictator due to a lack of system awareness, it would ruin the nation's name in news articles and almost seem a total slur on the party in question that might be construed as base name-calling.

Even soft options, such as adding a courtesy requirement for dictators to PM new parties to explain their stranglehold, would be far removed from perfect. First, the dictator would have to know the rule to follow it. Secondly, a dictator who didn't would have to be spotted by moderation to even be informed of the rule, by which time the new player would already have given up. Finally, it's a sad fact that most new players who try to fight dictatorships rarely ended up on the forum back in the time of Pax Cynica, so wouldn't know how to defend themselves and probably leave confused.

Short of Wouter coding in a new "flagging" feature into the Classic Game when he's focussed on the sequel or ridiculously intense vigilance on the part of the moderation team, I'm afraid this is a problem that has always had no perfect in-game solution.

(My ideal hard-code solution would be preventing 100% seat parties from calling Early Elections at all in the software, which is unenforcable in a soft fashion at present without a moderator on every 4 hours. In a real nation, if the other parties aren't known (i.e., aren't visible in game), you have no perceived threat to force you to call a vote. But then, a party with no seats couldn't propose a bill in a legislature either!)

I happened to be looking through old things for nostalgia's sake in a moment of wistfulness and it was curiously familiar to see this debate come up again. Past players have shared the anger of the problem and past moderators the despair of a lack of a suitable solution for it.

Aquinas, I empathise entirely with your view but also Zanz's situation here. This discussion is as old as the game itself, needing a lengthy discussion with a large number of players for a comprehensive and feasible solution.

I was here by chance and didn't even know it had reared it's head again, but consider this an apology from the past.

---
Incidentally, good to see there's a lot more respect in here than the dark early days and keep it up!

[Farsun]

Nice to see you turned up IdioC! Thank you for this, I think it was much needed.

[Amazeroth]

Incidentally, good to see there's a lot more respect in here than the dark early days and keep it up!

I thought you'd appreciate that.

[Zanz]

Indeed, IdioC, thanks for your comments and input, I had wondered whether we'd ever see you again!

I don't know if you know this, but it was through you that I discovered Particracy in the first place, back in 2007. I ran into you on NationStates, I believe in the NS World Cup, and somehow ended up here. So thanks, man!

[TheNewGuy]

Since I have a new fellow in Wantuni, I figured I'd take the opportunity to be proactive here and messaged him what could potentially become my catch-all message to new players. Have a look and let me know what you think. I think it's certainly better than how I handled the situation that lead to this thread, at least:

OOC: Hey, welcome to Wantuni!

My name is Zanz, I am the leading party currently in power in Wantuni. Are you new to the game or just to this nation?

I wanted to fill you in a bit on what's going on in Wantuni, either way. My party, Wantuni Strength, took control of Wantuni some time ago representing the Wantuni (RL equivalent: Arabs) minority. When we did so we harshly oppressed the Kalopian (RL equivalent: Greeks) majority, committing what is more and more frequently being called a "genocide" by the international community.

In order to maintain this power, my party has demanded total control of the senate. To ensure this they have called for early elections every time a new party threatens to gain visibility and challenge their control in government. This is a move that I have done for IC (In Character) roleplay reasons, but OOC (Out of Character) it is a tactic that is seen as underhanded and manipulative by some. This is why I write you today.

My party is a dictatorship. It will stop at no end to maintain power. This is represented IC through these early elections as essentially "rigged elections." OOC this tactic is strong and may keep you out of government for some time, which can be frustrating and disappointing, but it is not invincible. As my party continuously calls early elections its visibility will drop and some day you may catch up to me.

OR if you're willing to RP with me (which is what I really want) we can come to some sort of arrangement to end my use of this tactic and use the underlying fragile nature of my system against itself. All dictatorships fall, after all, and I am totally ready to let mine fall too, but I want it to go down in a blaze of roleplay!

So if you have any questions, please contact me and let me know. Basically, just don't take anything I do personally if it frustrates you, as I really do hope that we can become friends through this. If roleplaying in this kind of situation does not sound intriguing to you, I also must stress that this situation is not the norm in Particracy and if you should decide to leave Wantuni I hope you will certainly consider a move to a nation where elections are not "rigged" and you can play in whatever manner you would like!

Regards,

Zanz

[Dynastia]

When I invented the treaty lockout/perpetual earlies/pre-loaded inactives system (yes, it was me, sorry) it was all but unstoppable once it was in place, and despite what people are saying about it being 'eventually' combatable, if you put enough time into creating high-visibility backups for when your dictatorship ran out of visibility, you could extend your control for a ridiculously long time. Indefinitely, really, if you took the time to unlock, pass some bills and then relock every time you got a brief window where all opposing parties left. Nobody's going to hang around in a nation long enough for 30 fully visible parties to run out of visibility, one after another. Luckily, we held back on being quite so evil, and never kept a nation locked down for longer than it took for a fully visible party to lose visibility three or four times over.

But back when we were using those tactics, the world was pretty close to full. We didn't consider it an especially dirty tactic to bumrush a nation and treatylock it because it took a fair bit of planning, co-ordination and effort to get that 2/3rd majority in a nation with 5+ opponents, especially since we usually only had 2-3 players available for foreign bumrushing and couldn't rely on numbers alone. So while it was a significantly threatening tactic, I believe it became acceptable within the community mainly because everyone understood that it took a dedicated team to pull it off, you could see it coming if you knew what to look for, we could be quite easily foiled if you saw us coming and took preemptive measures, and we had no chance of winning a supermajority against twice as many opposing parties unless they were so ridiculously stupid that they thought the best way to defeat us was to all vote together against everything we proposed, and didn't notice that all of us except our 'designated opposition' kept swapping their votes at the last minute to help split the natives. (sadly, a lot of players were this stupid)

But when I look at how many parties the average nation has now, it disturbs me to think of how easily a single player, with no planning, could just grab up an empty nation and lock it down. I think if this tactic wasn't discovered until today, it would not be accepted at all by the community. And I think the only reason it's accepted now is because the precedent was set back when it was so difficult to get into a position to lockdown a nation, and so easy to prevent a bumrush. Now, with all the vacant nations, I think perhaps that the moderation should take another look at the tactic, while completely ignoring the fact that it's been acceptable for so long. The precedent was set in a much more active game, where the potential for abuse was much lower. It might be time for a change in policy.