Particracy Dev (Siggon World): Announcements & Feedback

[Siggon Kristov]

This should be in the forum at the bottom of the forum, not in General Discussion.

Agreed. First, he moved it from that forum and changed its name to "Particracy Dev: Announcements & Feedback" without consulting me at all. Of course, he sent a message afterwards, telling me "Hey, I hope you don't mind I did this" without caring if I actually minded.

Now he says this:

Thanks, Siggon. I have changed the title of the thread to make clear it is about the Siggon World in P3.

Could you move it back to where it belongs, please?
Its original location and title were fine together. You did not need to move it, and you wouldn't have had to change the title if you did not move it. I appreciate youre activity, but you're fixing problems that don't exist.

[Aquinas]

As I explained yesterday, Siggon, the Particracy Dev Roleplay sub-forum is a RP sub-forum and is in the RP section of the forum. OOC threads do not belong there, and if they do appear there, they will likely be moved to somewhere more appropriate.

[Siggon Kristov]

As I explained yesterday, Siggon, the Particracy Dev Roleplay sub-forum is a RP sub-forum and is in the RP section of the forum.

It's not "the Particracy Dev Roleplay sub-forum" - it's the "Particracy Dev Roleplay (World: Siggon)" - it is for a specific world.

OOC threads do not belong there, and if they do appear there, they will likely be moved to somewhere more appropriate.

It's for OOC announcements specifically for players who use the subforum, not for the general community. It does not belong in General Discussion. You are the only one who seems to have a problem with where it was. By your logic, GreekIdiot's thread doesn't belong in World Events. The only difference between his and mine is that mine allows players to give feedback, and I intended to make multiple announcements, whereas he only wanted to make one that governs World Events. In my case, I'm making one that governs the subforum.

You're being difficult about this. There was no problem. You did not fix anything. You're only causing annoyance and arguments right now, just like you did when you deleted my treaty. It's nice that we have an active mod, and I commend you for your work, but you don't need to meddle with everything.

I asked for a subforum for my world, until the game's launch, and Wouter gave me that. I don't think he would be whining about me putting an OOC thread in there for announcements specifically related to my world. It's better to have the OOC thread there than in General Discussion. There is a thread in General Discussion for discussing Particracy Dev. My thread is specifically for governing Particracy Dev Roleplay in a particular world.

[Arizal1]

Please do not attempt to change the political systems in any of the countries, for the following reasons:

- It has caused crashing of the game twice, because 2 players that tried to change the political system didn't know what they were doing, and they basically made laws that didn't make sense together.
- The point of inviting you to populate the world was to test the different political systems, and how they work out with 2 or more parties in them over the course of several elections when the parties have different ideological stances. There are multiple countries open. If you don't like playing in the political system in the country that you're in, message me and I'll tell you which country has the political system that you want (or possibly create a new country, as I did for someone before).
- The point of this testing phase is to test new systems. Yet, in 2 separate countries, players are trying to change the political system to exactly the same one we use in Particracy Classic. In one such case, a player is setting the upper house and lower house to be elected exactly the same way. What is the point of having 2 houses if you're going to set them up exactly the same way?

I put a lot of work into lobbying, Wouter put a lot of work into development, then I again put work into setting up these tests. I had expected to see creativity, not Blandfest 3.

I have to commend Reddy for giving me certain ideas (and Wouter was made aware that those were Reddy's ideas, which incorporated well with something else Liu Che suggested), and I have to commend Jack for doing the opposite of blanding up his nation. I would also like to thank other players for offering to name territories - (and Liu Che for helping me to name a shit-load of territories in the past) - I'm going to need that help very soon.

-

You're still free to change any of the other variables, like the regular laws, and debate on those.

If you really really want to change the political system, please consult me to find out what the variables mean, or what a country's current setup is. My setups aren't permanent. They will all be reversed at the launch of the game, and every nation will do what it wants to do. Right now, however, I'm trying to test different political systems and how they function with multiple parties. I can't do that by myself, or even with just 2 other persons.

You may also give general feedback on the new features. They would be helpful. Keep in mind that not all new features have been implemented, so what you're seeing isn't some final product, so don't assume anything is going to be missing from the final product. Feedback on already-implemented features would be useful. Questions about future/new features that haven't been implemented yet should go to the other thread.

Is this still actual? What values are concerned by this warning?

[Siggon Kristov]

Is this still actual?

Yes.

What values are concerned by this warning?

Anything concerning how elections are done, so mainly these:
- Number of votes members of the body receive when the same number of votes are apportioned
- Apportionment of seats in the chamber
- Constituency definition for elections
- Criterion for subnational entities to participate as constituency in elections
- Maximum number of members permitted in the body
- Method for assigning party seats for this body
- Method for assigning a candidate to office
- Term length

If you feel like you're changing the electoral system, just run it by me.

[Choice Party]

I thought I'd write about my opinions and views on the new Particracy so far. I've played a few parties on there, I've always seemed to gave up in the end for some reason. :/ I'm going to try sticking around this time though! I think my new nation has some potential under my wise leadership.

One of my main issues is fielding politicians. Unlike Classic Particracy you can't type their names in manually and you have a random name generator instead. For some reason, it doesn't actually work for me well, I can only like click on the dice once and it works, sometimes not even that. After I click on the dice once, when I try again nothing happens. Plus I like the freedom to choose names like I do on particracy. Another thing is that it may just be me being stupid and not used to it, but I do find the game and layout rather complicated. One of my favourite aspects about games such as the original particracy and Nationstates is how basic it is, a clear east format. Although I acknowledge I'm likely in a minority here. But I still really like how the new one is turning out, it has the potential to be one of the best known political simulators in my opinion.

I find all the different legislatures rather hard to understand too, although I really do love the idea of multiple parliaments. Personally I think it'd be cool to show a bar graph with the number of seats each party has in each legislature on the main page like in the classic particracy, or at least for higher and lower house.

But any way, that's just my two cents. Overall I think it's great.

[Siggon Kristov]

I thought I'd write about my opinions and views on the new Particracy so far.

Thanks for your feedback. That's what this thread demands.

I've played a few parties on there, I've always seemed to gave up in the end for some reason. :/ I'm going to try sticking around this time though! I think my new nation has some potential under my wise leadership.

I think the 2 main problems are lack of interaction and lack of things to do:
1) We don't interact with each other much because we don't check for when there are bills up for debate/voting (it's easier to check in Classic).
2) There aren't many variables to have votes on.

One of my main issues is fielding politicians. Unlike Classic Particracy you can't type their names in manually and you have a random name generator instead. For some reason, it doesn't actually work for me well, I can only like click on the dice once and it works, sometimes not even that. After I click on the dice once, when I try again nothing happens.

That's very strange. I just checked it again and it works well for me. A new name pops up whenever I click the dice. I would like to know if anyone else is having this issue (as well as additional information from you all like browser, etc.), so that I can inform Wouter.

Plus I like the freedom to choose names like I do on particracy.

That's one thing that I'm not sure will be a good thing. For one, some worlds will want cultures to exist, and for cultural protocols to at least govern name generation. Secondly, Moderation won't be policing each party to see that their characters' names aren't real persons' names, and we don't want Moderation to wait until too late to do something about that, do we? Once an inappropriate character name ends up in an election result, we can't change it, and it remains a permanent stain on the records of a nation and on the world.

Another thing is that it may just be me being stupid and not used to it, but I do find the game and layout rather complicated. One of my favourite aspects about games such as the original particracy and Nationstates is how basic it is, a clear east format.

One thing that did make Classic so easy to come back to was its very simple layout. It seemed complicated at first, but it was only because it was so much information to take in. My friends and I always joked that it looks like we're using Windows 95, but we still loved the simplicity. I wouldn't say that the new layout is complicated; it's just new, and I find it difficult to adapt to new layouts as well. One thing that Classic has is a set of links (at the top or left) where you can navigate anywhere. The new Particracy has some links up top (party, nation, messages), but it does feel lacking. It's only one click to get to the World Map or Nations list in Classic; it's 2 in the new Particracy.

Although I acknowledge I'm likely in a minority here. But I still really like how the new one is turning out, it has the potential to be one of the best known political simulators in my opinion.

No, the issues you pointed out could very well have been issues for other players too. It's still important that you brought them up. Again, thanks.

I find all the different legislatures rather hard to understand too, although I really do love the idea of multiple parliaments. Personally I think it'd be cool to show a bar graph with the number of seats each party has in each legislature on the main page like in the classic particracy, or at least for higher and lower house.

The thing is... We haven't used "multiple parliaments" for a single entity at once, yet. The most we have done so far is to have 2 or more chambers for a parliament. If you click on a chamber, or a unicameral parliament, you will see the seat share of the parties. You also see the seat share on bills in the same way you do in Classic.

But I do think that your suggestion is good. We would just have to change how we show the seats, because it can't be done in the same way that we have it in Classic. In Classic, we have bars right beside the names. That will be problematic for multiple chambers. What we could do is to have it shown in the same way that it appears on bills, i.e. a single image for each chamber, split into the colours for the different parties. Would this be good enough for you?

But any way, that's just my two cents. Overall I think it's great.

What about it do you think is great?

[Choice Party]

Yeah, I think lack of variables in particular is an issue. Personally I think overall the layout for laws on classic particracy is a bit easier as it's not quite so cramped. Although it can be a bit too "listy" there. I reckon it could perhaps be beneficial to have it go off onto another page like it does in classic particracy, but have a smoother interface than in classic which matches the new one best. And yeah, I reckon on the party page there should be a "legislative agenda" like on classic and also a list of new bills directly onto the nation page, that would definitely make things a lot smoother. I remember it baffled me for quite a bit the first time I tried playing.

Yeah, it could just be from my end. But still, for me the issue's still there. Check out my list of candidates on my party page, one of them only has a surname. But I do understand your point of inappropriate names, for example whilst making a list of every head of state for my current nation, there were a few bizarre ones like Viagra and Holocaust (I think I replaced these on the actual wiki with names instead). However I believe that another system for name changing would be beneficial. Perhaps a drop list full of names like the drop lists used on bills would work, for example, have one section with the alphabet and then once you click on a letter, a second drop list appears like on bills, but full of names beginning with that letter. This or you can type in any name, but the system rejects the names if it's not a proper name, perhaps it could use a similar system to say when you type in a username and it says "username taken". Although this method could be rather complicated or impossible to pull off. I think my drop list idea could work though.

Haha yeah, TBH when it comes to games and stuff, I've always championed classic layouts which look like something from 2003. >< I think Nationstates before their last design change (the old theme is pretty much still available though) balanced out old, basic and new perfectly. Like when I first used it in 2012 that was basically perfect. Now I do feel there are too many options though. Plus I get the idea games such as Particracy attract an older userbase than a lot of games, and quite a few older people (my parents included) like as less options needed, nice and basic. But I still think your version of Particracy (shall I just call it Particracy 3 from now on?) is pretty good, especially for the more technically advanced players.

Ah I see. I think the two chambers is what I was referencing. Thanks, I think that would definitely be pretty good!

As for what I think is great about it, it's brining a more unique political simulator and making it a bit more "mainstream" if you catch my drift, like I could see this in the future being a pretty big game like NS or CN. The layout is more appealing for the mass amount of gamers so it has more potential in the mainstream. Personally I still prefer classic particracy, but it's my favourite game afterall and I'm a bit of a hipster when it comes to games. Oh one more idea, how about a logo?

[Choice Party]

Here's what I mean about the names btw:

[Martinulus]

Do you need help naming some stuff in Ermentrud? I think I can help naming German-themed stuff.

Also, is it intentional that that particular country is not a Federation?