Constitutional RP laws and "faction" systems

[Martinulus]

On a similar note, I do understand where he's coming from. It should probably be possible to play a party outside the system. Remember the September Revolution in Hulstria and Gao-Soto? If the rule had been active by that time, I'm sure CS would have locked the state in the same way, preventing the course of action that eventually happened. One-party regimes don't always fall from the inside - they can be ended by an uprising as well. It should be legitimate to portray an extraparliamentary resistance movement, so long as your find a way to reconcile in RP that your party is legally banned.

[Polites]

On a similar note, I do understand where he's coming from. It should probably be possible to play a party outside the system. Remember the September Revolution in Hulstria and Gao-Soto? If the rule had been active by that time, I'm sure CS would have locked the state in the same way, preventing the course of action that eventually happened. One-party regimes don't always fall from the inside - they can be ended by an uprising as well. It should be legitimate to portray an extraparliamentary resistance movement, so long as your find a way to reconcile in RP that your party is legally banned.

I don't think RP laws prevent players from RPing illegal or extra-parliamentary parties/factions/organizations, just like hardcoded ones don't mean that they are automatically respected. Otherwise you could end a rebellion by passing a bill banning paramilitaries, which would be ridiculous. I think the point of this rule is to allow the same level of enforcement to RP laws as hardcoded ones have. If a player chooses to ignore or violate them, then he should be informed that he places himself outside the system, so to speak.

[Martinulus]

Technically the current interpretation as Aquinas explained this states a "requirement to play as factions'. That sounds pretty much like resistance movements are not allowed.

[Polites]

Technically the current interpretation as Aquinas explained this states a "requirement to play as factions'. That sounds pretty much like resistance movements are not allowed.

I hope that is not the case, and that anti- or extra-system entities can't be banned OOCly by game rules.

[The Wave]

I never said that he could not resist the system, I would not object to that, but if he wishes to remain in parliament then he must conform. He can still have an extra-parliamenatry group that fights the system, that would not bother me. But his in-parliament play must adhere to the rules.

[Aquinas]

I never said that he could not resist the system, I would not object to that, but if he wishes to remain in parliament then he must conform. He can still have an extra-parliamenatry group that fights the system, that would not bother me. But his in-parliament play must adhere to the rules.

Exactly, and I should have made that clearer earlier. Under a one-party state system like this, extra-parliamentary entities like resistance movements can be role-played on the same terms as before. Obviously, though, if players want to take part in the legislature in a one-party state system, then then they need to RP as a faction of the state party in order to do that.

Let me make clear, by the way, that we welcome feedback on how the game rules framework surrounding all of this can be clarified or improved.

[Polites]

I never said that he could not resist the system, I would not object to that, but if he wishes to remain in parliament then he must conform. He can still have an extra-parliamenatry group that fights the system, that would not bother me. But his in-parliament play must adhere to the rules.

Exactly, and I should have made that clearer earlier. Under a one-party state system like this, extra-parliamentary entities like resistance movements can be role-played on the same terms as before. Obviously, though, if players want to take part in the legislature in a one-party state system, then then they need to RP as a faction of the state party in order to do that.

Let me make clear, by the way, that we welcome feedback on how the game rules framework surrounding all of this can be clarified or improved.

Ok, makes sense, but what about a nation that is RPd as being in a chaotic situation (like a civil war or revolution or whatever), where a national legislature is non-existent in terms of RP? Considering that electoral game mechanics are sometimes used as a mechanism for simulating civil wars, would players in such circumstances be forced to divorce their parliamentary party and their extra-parliamentary anti-system entity?

[Arizal1]

I'm glad someone brought that up.

I'm the first one who experienced this "faction system" (started by Siggon), and it is my very first experience on partycracy. I understand how you may feel, OP, especially if you already have a party history, contrary to me, which started from scratch. Asking you to change the name of your party may fit very badly in your own narrative.

I registered on Particracy thinking I would play a political party and ended up playing a "faction". Even tough I chose to stay in my country, I have a few grudges against this system.

My main problem with the "factions" system is that it doesn't feel like a one-party state at all. To me, a one-party state should be a place where there is an official line to the party and where dissent on major matters would be discouraged.

"Faction" is not a pretty word. It shouldn't be glorified (which is pretty much my fault in Ibutho since I am the only one who clearly named my group "Social-liberal faction" and everyone speaks of it like that). If there is an unified party, it should feel as if unity was important. Currently, one can reverse major parts of the party's platform on a whim or dissent on important décisions. How can we say we are a united party when one of the faction basically double-crossed the leader to cancel its most important decisions (I managed to reintroduce free press and to banish paramilitaries). Shouldn't the leader has something he could do to prevent this situation or retaliate against the traitors?

The only element which make this faction system feel different than a multi-party system (in my opinion) is the fact that (at least in Ibutho), the faction which has the majority of the votes try to engage the other factions in the government. It seems a tacit rule. Apart from that, we could be named parties without much change to our roleplay.

In my opinion, there should be rp provisions to adress tensions in the supposed party and a way to end the experience, either by a civil war or by a peaceful divorce. So for the party to feel real, something should be seen as its core, from which dissent is pretty much impossible, except by a long and covert work to convince the majority of the party of the rightfulness of our ideas. Maybe moderators could force people to vote with the party, to abstain or to declare a civil war (or a putsch) in those cases. Maybe also players ejected from the party (because of a disagreement about the leadership) could be seen as "external forces" and trigger a civil war scenario.

This isn't a total refusal of this mechanic. I would rather refine it (that is if I continue to play in it in the future). Just to be sure, tought, you said, Aquinas, that to make a constitutional change, we needed 2/3 of the votes. Wasn't there cases where you needed 2/3 of the players?

And just about that :

A month or so ago this same moderator was hassling me about my character names not being in german.

I find this normal and natural (requiring not much involvement) to make names compatible with the culture of the country we are in. We don't have to think about it much after and it gives a sense of immersion to the other players and to ourselves which is most welcome. I do not find this too much.

[Siggon Kristov]

My main problem with the "factions" system is that it doesn't feel like a one-party state at all. To me, a one-party state should be a place where there is an official line to the party and where dissent on major matters would be discouraged.

We have discouraged certain types of conduct; MPs don't address each other in the vile way that mine did in Lodamun. Uhh, there have been no "major matters" and who decides the party line anyway? We decide it together, as the Ikomidi. I think your idea of one-party states are biased because of your personal views. As you can see in post-Mao China, or the ANC in South Africa, there can be a lot of diversity in views that exist in a single party. Yes, South Africa isn't officially a one-party state, but it effectively functions like one since the ANC dominates politics. The ANC has a large range of views inside it; as far as I know, it ranges from far-left to centre-right. Even you have admitted that a one-party state (like the USSR) can end up focusing less on ideology. Yes, there was a party line established in Communist parties, but there was a body that decided the party line. In the case of Ibutho, the body is the legislature itself; the party is bigger than the legislature.

I set it up in a way to give players power that is proportional to their performance in elections. I don't want a single player or set of players to dominate or have some kind of OOC authority over the others. I deliberately set it up to allow fairness.

"Faction" is not a pretty word. It shouldn't be glorified (which is pretty much my fault in Ibutho since I am the only one who clearly named my group "Social-liberal faction" and everyone speaks of it like that). If there is an unified party, it should feel as if unity was important.

You can be divided in opinions, but united in intentions. The intention is to do what is best for Ibutho, but there are differing opinions on what is considered to be "the best" or not. Your organisation could have been named the "Social Liberal Caucus" if you feel that "faction" is ineffective.

Currently, one can reverse major parts of the party's platform on a whim or dissent on important décisions.

No, "one" can't do that without having a majority of support in the party's central organ. Currently, no "one" player/faction can do anything. It requires collaboration from others in the party.

How can we say we are a united party when one of the faction basically double-crossed the leader to cancel its most important decisions (I managed to reintroduce free press and to banish paramilitaries). Shouldn't the leader has something he could do to prevent this situation or retaliate against the traitors?

Understand the difference between autocratic/one-man dictatorships and one-party dictatorships. A one-party dictatorship does not always mean that the party leader has absolute power. The party leader derives his power from majority support in the powerful organs of the party. A party leader can easily be deposed and replaced if he becomes too unpopular. It would be difficult for him to purge a majority of his own party. Purges usually happen after a leader can convince others in the party that people are betraying the party itself. In Lodamun, I always found a party to pick on and convince the Presidium that it was the source of evil in the country. If you saw the arguments that I used to defend my party's position on certain bills, you would laugh at how ridiculous they were. However, when a party leader can't convince a majority to surround and support him, it's different. The party leader that was against free press and paramilitaries was replaced anyway, and the new party leader supported some of the reforms that your party made.

The only element which make this faction system feel different than a multi-party system (in my opinion) is the fact that (at least in Ibutho), the faction which has the majority of the votes try to engage the other factions in the government. It seems a tacit rule. Apart from that, we could be named parties without much change to our roleplay.

In many cases, the uniqueness of a system doesn't have much to do with what happens. Most of the time, the focus is on how issues are reported in IC threads in the forum.

In my opinion, there should be rp provisions to adress tensions in the supposed party and a way to end the experience, either by a civil war or by a peaceful divorce. So for the party to feel real, something should be seen as its core, from which dissent is pretty much impossible, except by a long and covert work to convince the majority of the party of the rightfulness of our ideas.

I already established that the Ikomidi is both the central organ of the party (and the nation's legislature). That is the core of the party. I wanted to make all players feel like a part of the core. We can communicate OOC and decide what happens in-game, and then RP all that. What I refuse to do is to dictate everything that other players do. I don't want to give any specific player (or set of players) the exclusive right to dictate a party line. The party line is whatever the Ikomidi votes for, and it can be changed. When the Ikomidi establishes a party line, you can't go against it outside of the party, but you can go against it in the Ikomidi itself.

Maybe moderators could force people to vote with the party, to abstain or to declare a civil war (or a putsch) in those cases. Maybe also players ejected from the party (because of a disagreement about the leadership) could be seen as "external forces" and trigger a civil war scenario.

I think this is unnecessary. Are you not understanding that all the players combined are "the party" ?
People can belong to the same party and have completely opposing views.

A civil war needs consent of a majority of players, the same majority that would already be able to change the system anyway. Moderation can't force players to RP a civil war, though they can suggest (or softly demand) that realistic RP accompanies major changes. We already discussed how the system can be changed. It's not complex. Dominate the party with a supermajority (whether on your own or alongside others who agree with you), and then vote to open up Ibutho to be a multi-party system. Zambia was a one-party state, and the government eventually lifted the ban on other parties. I'm sure it's not the only case of a one-party state voluntarily transitioning into a multi-party one, or an autocrat deciding to allow elections. Sure, there are protests and riots and stuff, but there wasn't an overthrow of the government. You can just work towards a supermajority in the Ikomidi and make the changes you want. It's not that complicated.

[Arizal1]

Uhh, there have been no "major matters" and who decides the party line anyway?

Maybe this wasn't major for you, but I felt the free press / paramilitaries reform quite something and pondered if the idea of breaking with the National Party.

I think your idea of one-party states are biased because of your personal views. As you can see in post-Mao China, or the ANC in South Africa, there can be a lot of diversity in views that exist in a single party.

It is probably biased, because I have never seen a one-party State in the real life. I can only theorize from what I know. And I think a political party can easily become dictatorial from the inside. When there is only one in a country, this can be very dangerous.

South Africa, as "de facto" one party State, isn't a good example to me. It has only one party, yes, but it doesn't actively criminalize other parties from emerging. As for China, yes there are diversity. As I understand it from what a teacher said, it is because there are local bodies and that they are able to give a message about what to do. If it weren't for that, China could have had the same fate than Russia. China managed to adapt its communist party, which doesn't look at all like it did when Mao was in power. Still, there is an heavy censorship in China and the people aren't free at all to criticize the government positions.

What I dislike from the idea of one-party State isn't the idea that a party is the only one represented in the government or even in the legislature, it is that it bans other political parties from existing. My idea of liberty is also challenged when the only governing party doesn't have free membership.

Even you have admitted that a one-party state (like the USSR) can end up focusing less on ideology.

Yes, I said that while I had in mind the USSR example, where after a long struggle to "purify" the party with Stalin (and Kruchtchev), the party ideologic position blurred until they elected Gorbatchev, which launched a series of reforms and opened the Pandora's box. Sadly, I don't think "no focus on ideology" means passionate internal debates.

Your organisation could have been named the "Social Liberal Caucus" if you feel that "faction" is ineffective.

Done. However, I considered that there was only one caucus by party. There can probably be more. I will sadly lose my nice shortcut : when I talked about your faction, I called it the "Caucus" because until very recently you were the leader.

Understand the difference between autocratic/one-man dictatorships and one-party dictatorships. A one-party dictatorship does not always mean that the party leader has absolute power. The party leader derives his power from majority support in the powerful organs of the party. A party leader can easily be deposed and replaced if he becomes too unpopular. It would be difficult for him to purge a majority of his own party. Purges usually happen after a leader can convince others in the party that people are betraying the party itself. In Lodamun, I always found a party to pick on and convince the Presidium that it was the source of evil in the country. If you saw the arguments that I used to defend my party's position on certain bills, you would laugh at how ridiculous they were. However, when a party leader can't convince a majority to surround and support him, it's different. The party leader that was against free press and paramilitaries was replaced anyway, and the new party leader supported some of the reforms that your party made.

You may very well be right. Still, I think this would be difficult to achieve, because the leader of the party, especially if he can ban people from the party, can enjoy a power which discourages people to contradict him directly. But it is feasible. Then my suggestion doesn't work and would be more restrictive than what we already have. All right, you convinced me (not that a one party state is democratic, but at least that the scheme you build is believable).