Particracy Forum

Hello! In Wantuni (http://classic.particracy.net/viewnatio ... ationid=44) there is a political party that openly wants to refuse to let other parties gain any visibility, by constantly proposing early elections. They do this to prevent other parties from ever getting any seats whatsoever, again to keep government power for ever. Please make the party (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=19518) stop doing this. They've done it against other players than me, causing them to leave. They have admitted why they do it - doesn't it go against some game rules, as now Wantuni is forever going to be dominated by this dictatorial party unless you do something? Please please please help me!

Their reason to do all this:

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=384388

Early elections they have held:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=382853
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=382880
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=382899
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=383021
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=384402

Hello!

That party is played by Zanz, who is a moderator. Thurs it obviously isn't against the rules.

I know how irritating it can be - luckily I'm nowaydays old enough to have inactive parties with visibility in all the countries I'm interested in. Don't get taken by despair, though. Either, some other party with visibility will be reactivated, or eventually, after a while, the Wantuni Strength will get low on visibility too.

How great to know that I'll never get a single seat then after all the work with a wikia page and everything. I'll rather just inactivate my own party... thanks anyway.

SelCru, that was just totally uncalled for and totally baseless.

As explained, the tactic is unfortunately something that is not against the rules and has been done time and time again to perpetuate parties in government. It's been done numerous times to myself and every complaint I've ever filed has been met with the same response of it not being against the game rules. I suggest moving to perhaps a non-IG dictatorship in the area such as Jakania or Solentia.

I've opened discussions with BobMcBobson through in game PM regarding ending my use of the early-election lockout tactic, in the hopes that he won't leave, as it does seem he means well and may RP with me.

For the record, though, there is no rule against the use of this tactic, as SelCru has noted. It is a remarkably effective means of maintaining power in Particracy and is too often used but not RP'd, which annoys me. When I was threatened by Captain-Socialist recently I attempted to roleplay it to give it some legitimacy.

EDIT: Bob left already. So maybe he didn't see my message. In any case, I'm open to new players if you're going to RP... I don't just want someone to come in and be like "LOL GREEK AGAIN," but I certainly acknowledge that there is a Kalopian minority and it's NOT well represented by my party at all, so there should be opposition.

Farsun wrote:SelCru, that was just totally uncalled for and totally baseless.

You must have misread my statement. I only stated that a mod obviously doesn't break the rules.

Farsun wrote:As explained, the tactic is unfortunately something that is not against the rules and has been done time and time again to perpetuate parties in government. It's been done numerous times to myself and every complaint I've ever filed has been met with the same response of it not being against the game rules. I suggest moving to perhaps a non-IG dictatorship in the area such as Jakania or Solentia.

As long as other tactics are allowed, like setting the proposal quota to one a year, making your cabinet unremarkable by giving the power to appoint cabinets to an unelected head of state - I don't see it as much of a stretch. Either there should be a general rule against using game mechanics to keep yourself in a position of absolute power - or those things should be allowed.

Like I wrote, it can't last forever, after a while, the single party repeatedly calling for new elections will get low on visibility too.

SelucianCrusader wrote:You must have misread my statement. I only stated that a mod obviously doesn't break the rules.

Fair enough, I apologize.

SelucianCrusader wrote: As long as other tactics are allowed, like setting the proposal quota to one a year, making your cabinet unremarkable by giving the power to appoint cabinets to an unelected head of state - I don't see it as much of a stretch. Either there should be a general rule against using game mechanics to keep yourself in a position of absolute power - or those things should be allowed.

Like I wrote, it can't last forever, after a while, the single party repeatedly calling for new elections will get low on visibility too.

I like to think that such a general "niceness" exists, but it doesn't. Players throughout the games history have used it and used it often on players who wanted to make an impact on a nation or wanted to RP it. I attempt to deter players away from such tactics but again, you can only do so much when a rule doesn't exist. Though, with that being said I will bring it to the table for discussion however, as always, game mechanics triumph non-game mechanics thus it would not receive such support.

Farsun wrote:I like to think that such a general "niceness" exists, but it doesn't. Players throughout the games history have used it and used it often on players who wanted to make an impact on a nation or wanted to RP it. I attempt to deter players away from such tactics but again, you can only do so much when a rule doesn't exist. Though, with that being said I will bring it to the table for discussion however, as always, game mechanics triumph non-game mechanics thus it would not receive such support.

I can somewhat agree about "niceness". I wouldn't mind some sort of "referendum" on this issue though, as I guess there are more than just Bob and you who disapprove of the practice.

Even still, from a moderation standpoint, were unfortunately stricken by the game mechanics though I personally do not believe in that argument hence the cultural protocols and the like, but those are of much more pressing issues than this. Issues like this arise very very rarely and are often used in nations which have long established traditions and customs, not that it makes it right. Thus if a player ever really wanted to do it, even if some sort of general referendum was accepted, they would in theory have every right to do it. Granted, it might make said player a pariah but nevertheless its allowed by the game laws.

Using the early election tactic to stop other parties from gaining seats may not be against the game rules, but if I'm honest...I find it difficult not to see it as ungentlemanly and poor gamesmanship. If I was a new player who had joined a nation for the first time and experienced this, I think it might put me off Particracy completely.

If players are going to be allowed to do this, then maybe their nations should be kitemarked in some way, so that any player considering joining is aware of what the situation is.