Zanz wrote:I can tell you he sent me two messages, both when I was offline and couldn't respond: the first at 23:37 saying I should change my ways or he'd involve moderation, the second at 23:47 saying he'd brought it to moderation. What exactly could I have done in that time frame? And even here SelCru responded to his message before I had read it and explained it in terms that likely made it look impossible to face me rather than simply challenging as I would like for it to be. I have done my best, considering the circumstances.
As I said, you could have discussed having fair elections with your fellow Wantuni players when they first joined Wantuni. Instead of waiting until...this.
Zanz wrote:And I for one support the existence of the tactic (as should be obvious from my use of it). Even if it is scummy OOC, there are precious few means for dictatorships to shape themselves ICly in Particracy because of the fickleness of the election mechanism. A party with a super majority one day can lose it to a completely new party the next day, even if the super majority has held power for years and roleplayed its utter hegemony. As SelCru has pointed out, there are ways around the early election exploit, and everything comes to an end eventually. But that's not a reason to ban this outright.
The name of the game is "Particracy", not "Dictatorship". The game description on the main Particracy page reads "
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". How will they do those things if every vote in the legislature is interrupted by an early election? It also reads: "
Will your nation be a free market paradise or a socialist utopia? Only the voters will decide." How will the voters decide if every political party apart from one are never allowed any visibility?
And yes, I acknowledge that "there are ways around the early election exploit". But remember they can take a *long* time, Zanz...
Zanz wrote:And as for a referendum, I don't know that it'll do much other than affirm the fact that people don't like this tactic, which they already clearly do not. Its proponents are pariahs OOC already. I think the unfortunate thing is that people are too lazy or self-absorbed to recognize it IC and make the nations that use it IC pariahs as well.
I'm disappointed you are finding me "lazy or self-absorbed", but as I said, so far as I can see, denying new parties the chance to establish themselves smacks of selfish gameplay. Unless, of course, it is a roleplay thing that has been agreed to by all the players in advance. Which in this case it obviously hasn't been.