Inactivation and visibility

[Conallcernach]

Hey all,

I was wondering if going inactive should also reset the visibility of a party to zero. The point being that if a party disappears or deforms, then they're not going to have the same visibility as when they went out. It seems to make sense to me.

[Steven]

No, if you inactivate the party retains its visibility.

[Mr.Yankees]

No, if you inactivate the party retains its visibility.

I believe you are correct.

[Molotov]

He was asking whether it should, not whether it does. I think.

Hey all,

I was wondering if going inactive should also reset the visibility of a party to zero. The point being that if a party disappears or deforms, then they're not going to have the same visibility as when they went out. It seems to make sense to me.

I think maybe it should too, but no changes are going to be made to P1 because Wouter's working on P2.

[JuliaAJA]

I think it would make sense for it to fade when you're inactive.

[Mr.Yankees]

He was asking whether it should, not whether it does. I think.

Hey all,

I was wondering if going inactive should also reset the visibility of a party to zero. The point being that if a party disappears or deforms, then they're not going to have the same visibility as when they went out. It seems to make sense to me.

I think maybe it should too, but no changes are going to be made to P1 because Wouter's working on P2.

Well, it is almost impossible to tell what he was asking if he was asking something. The fact that he put it under Moderation and not under General Discussions makes me believe that he was asking but again, I don't know.

Just in case I was wrong, I'll like to say that I agree with what has been said. Visibilities should decrease for both active and inactive parties. It is the fair thing to do (not that I think life is fair). And obviously makes it easier for players like myself.

[Conallcernach]

"I was wondering if going inactive should also reset the visibility of a party to zero"

It's subtle, but it's there. This is a suggestion.

[AngryMollusc]

Just in case I was wrong, I'll like to say that I agree with what has been said. Visibilities should decrease for both active and inactive parties. It is the fair thing to do (not that I think life is fair). And obviously makes it easier for players like myself.

Strangely enough, I'm in agreement with you on this point.

While we're at it, why not make it so cabinet parties' visibilities don't decline at all...

Edit: But seriously, while its more realistic, its probably a bad idea. Don't want to make the world too easy to rule.

[GreekIdiot]

Let's use the example of a real life party going inactive. For instance, the Republicans. For some particracy-weird-really imaginative reason the Republican Party goes inactive and vanishes officially from the political stage. Maybe its members are still alive, or dead after a civil war, who knows. But let's say that after a few years the Republican Party re-emerges into politics under different leadership but apparently with the same goals and objectives, ideas, morals, etc. People still remember who the Republicans were and apparently are.

In particracy, if you reactivate and still have strong visibility but follow a different political path, like the Republicans going hardcore communist, then you'll lose voters anyway, since you'll mix everything and mess things up. If you stay the way you are, once a liberal, always a liberal and the like, people then remember you and remember your work and legislative proposals and vote for you like the last time.

When you reactivate a party with structured visibilities, with that meaning not zero, it doesn't mean you get to have somewhat the same seats or voters supporting you. There are plenty of factors influencing your legislative path, factors which I shall not mention here since understanding those factors means you are more close to success. Sit with the proper teacher and you'll learn.

[AdJeCtIv3]

Besides, an old party re-activating in a treaty-locked country is always an interesting wildcard. I'd hate to see this implemented for this reason, as well as the reasons George has outlined above.