Arizal1 wrote:After I stated I was talking about my personal preferences when I made the comment a), you got back at me and asked me what was the difference between two sentences meaning logically exactly the same thing and asked what was the difference between them. I said in my last post that there was no difference and stated the difference I saw between your system and the one I would be satisfied with :
Arizal1 wrote:1) Only one party is allowed in the government and legislature; one party is allowed to exist, and all others are banned.
2) There is one main party (as for the ANC) monopolizing the government; other parties are allowed in the legislatures.
And you accused me of twisting my arguments. I don't see any nonsense in all of that. I am not denying what I said in the past and I argue that I stayed constant in my ideal. When I said that :
Arizal1 wrote: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.
... it really meant a country could be a de facto one party state with just one party represented in the government and in the legislature. It is theoritically possible that a party wins a landslide and the legislature is left with only one party remaining (therefore I added "or even in the legislature" to my sentence) (proof here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bruns ... tion,_1987). What I am stating, indeed what I stated all the way, is that the hegemonic party musn't ban the other parties to be represented in the legislature. And this is my personnal position which has so little to do with Particracy. I didn't changed my position nor lied.
We're talking about an enforced system, not something that happens by chance. You accused me of employing a strawman argument in my interpretation of what you said you dislike about one-party states. I did not employ a strawman argument; I split your quote into exactly what you said that you liked and what you said that you disliked, and you accused me of employing a strawman argument.
Arizal1 wrote:So you don't like my proposal about a legislature with many players playing the same party. You however said that South Africa was a de facto one-party state, so I tought this could be modelled like that. I understand your disapproval.
I want an official one-party state, not merely one that remains de facto by chance. If we're going to do it like South Africa, it would be a completely different system; we would need to change the title of the head of state and the name of the legislature. I don't just want a de facto one-party state... I want a system that enforces a one-party state. Your proposal does not satisfy what I'm working for.
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote:If you're going to make it about your values, I hope that you (and Moderation) understand when I bring my own values into this. It leaves a very very bad taste in my mouth when someone from a Western first-world country insists that the game's African country should have "a good political system according to" his values. Again, there are other political systems that could work in Ibutho, but your reason for wanting to change it is what is really rubbing me in a negative way.
I understand, but I thought we were supposed to embody characters. And if my character, as myself, like multi-party political systems, then I think I am free to try to reform Ibutho system. That will propably not happen, tought. I could roleplay my failure. I'm sure this would be fun.
Yes, and that is fine if your African character wants an African multi-party country, but at first you argued against the one-party system from your Western perspective.
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote:A player can end up being in a nation by himself for days, or even weeks. Prohibiting the player from making any changes will cause things to be stale, and discourage that player from participating in international RP.
This is true. And if modified rp were permitted to the sole player, then it would be just like giving a veto to the new player if the moderators were to strip him of his new system once he arrives. This is a very good point. But yet again, is it so hard to find other players to play our lulabbies with us? If players play all alone, are they not missing the purpose of Particracy, which is primarily to play a political party in a country with other players.
Again, I would understand this sentiment if a player had created a system that resulted in imbalance or unfairness. Some players have made constitutional reforms that make the game extremely difficult (and unplayable) for new players. Whether a new player approves of a system or not is by random chance. Just like you joined and didn't like the system, someone else could have joined before you instead and liked it; people joined after you, and liked it. What if you had joined, and Moderation had cancelled the system because of your disapproval, and then other players who would have liked the system joined after? All these details really should not affect a system. The only thing that should determine the legitimacy of a system in the game is whether it affects balance/fairness.
Yes, it is a multiplayer game, and my system keeps it multiplayer. There are occasions where players have done things which make the game unplayable for new players, and that is what discourages multiplayer.
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote:The point is that even if Moderation required 2/3 of players (and not seats) to agree to a change, new players (or players with zero seats) would not count. Moderation would still read the situation as if there was only 1 player, even after you joined, because you didn't have seats (if they judged it the same way they judged cultural protocols).
Then we should wait after one election to implement those changes. This seems reasonable enough, meaning that the country is back in some sort of normality an that there are disagreements in it.
1) I set the changes to vote before you joined the game. The changes could have been implemented before anyone new joined the country.
2) Even if I had called elections right after you joined, you would not have gotten any seats, but we would have fulfilled the "wait after one election" requirement that you just suggested.
3) An election would take place under another system which is really arbitrary in discussing the legitimacy of a new system. Why should we wait for an election before changing that system to something else?
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote:It will be complicated to enforce rules with consideration for all of these minor/petty details, i.e. the differenc between 1 and 2 players, and the difference between 2 and 3 players, etc.
The only rule I propose can be stated like that : "nobody can make an rp bill while holding 100% of the seats." This is indeed a modified version since I am taking into account what you said about the way the moderators count the players in a country.
I already raised the issue with this suggestion. Some players end up staying in an empty country when other players go inactive, and some players go to empty countries and end up being there alone for days or weeks. Why should such a player wait days or weeks before introducing an interesting system that depends on RP laws? Before me, a player was in Ibutho by himself for at least 12 years in-game, which is 24 days (more than 3 weeks, almost a month) in real life. I got here alone and I introduced a system that caused other players to want to play in Ibutho. I didn't message them to invite them to join Ibutho; they decided that they wanted to join, and they messaged me. If I had waited, there is no guarantee that a new player would have joined, and I could have very well ended up playing here alone because I would not have been allowed to set up a system based on RP laws unless I asked others to join me in Ibutho (I did not want to ask them to do that, because that looks like I'm just securing my power in a nation).
I keep saying it. I keep repeating myself. I said something which is already supported by Moderation and others (including relatively new players) in the community. The main thing that should matter is that RP laws don't cause imbalance or unfairness for anyone. We should examine RP laws based on their effects on gameplay, not fine details about when they were implemented and who implemented them.
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote:This would encourage nation raiding. Players would bundle up in a nation to support or defend a system. Basically, your proposed requirement for more than 1 persons to be there could just be easily satisfied by me inviting other friends to join and strengthen my cause in the nation. This would lessen the need for there to be understanding between us, and would actually discourage new players even more since they would feel as if older players are ganging up against them.
I don't think so, since except if people are extremely mean, those invited people should normally stay in the country after changing it. If people were to leave the country as soon as the "threat" is removed, then you would be right. But as soon as there would be one other player in the country wanting the change, all should be fine.
People are mean, and people will work as friends - in cliques - to support each other's OOC interests sometimes. It's what happens when republican players try to raid a monarchy; other pro-monarchy players jump to join the raided nation to help to defend the monarchy along with the monarchist party that is already there. And yes, some players do join countries just to change/dismantle their system and then leave. Nation raiding has happened before.
I created Ibutho's current system with 100% of the seats. When you joined, I engaged you and discussed everything with you. Imagine that your suggestion was implemented, and that a player couldn't create RP laws if he had 100% of the seats. All a player would need to do is to invite a friend into the nation to support the RP laws and stay there for about a week or 2 weeks. If you joined during this time, the player who created the system would have less need to communicate with you since there is someone else there who supports the system already, and since you couldn't get the 2/3 of seats required to change it. New players would be even more powerless with your suggestion, because it encourages old players to clique together to make the changes they want, so fighting against them becomes even harder.
Arizal1 wrote:Also, I think there is already a limit on how often a player can switch country. Nation raiding seems to be exactly that.
There isn't a limit.
I notice Zongxian quoted you on something, and that I can't find the quote in your last post. I notice that your last post was edited after Zongxian made his. I do not think that Zongxian is dishonest, so I'm going to assume that he quoted you correctly and I'm going to reply (to both you and him) anyway.
Arizal1 wrote:If a system gave so much advantages to one player, why would another one want to play with him?
The problem is that your suggestion enforces the assumption that a player's only reason for not wanting to play in a system is that it gives too many advantages to another player. A player could oppose a system without the system causing disadvantages for anyone. If a system gives advantages to a single player, Moderation will step in. If a player does not like a system, it does not always mean that the system is unfair.
Arizal1 wrote:Currently, as I understand it, someone can enter in a country, mold it has his hearth desire, and then other players have to comply with his system except if the moderation proves the system is not good.
It doesn't matter whether it's just 1 player or 7 players. If you go into a country with a system that you don't like, you have to comply with the system unless Moderation proves that the system is not good. The fact that 1 player made a system does not mean that the system is bad, and the fact that 1 player opposes it does not mean that the player is opposing it because of fairness.
Zongxian wrote:Prove how this "system is not good."
I don't think he was saying that the system is not good; I think he was just saying that Moderation has to prove that a system is bad before being able to order an abolition of it. He is correct, but I do not see anything wrong with Moderation only intervening when a system is bad.
Zongxian wrote:How is it harming the game? Because I don't think there is any evidence that it is harming the game.
No, there is none.
Even he has admitted that the system isn't harming the game or causing any unfairness or imbalance for anyone.
Zongxian wrote:You keep proposing "reforms" to the rules, but the system isn't broken.
Thank you.
Zongxian wrote:Why is there this prolonged debate about the validity of one-player RP?
I want to know this as well. I don't get why he insists on focusing on whether it is 1 or 2 players who implement a system, instead of focusing on whether the system itself is good or bad.
Zongxian wrote:At this point, I feel like this really does have more to do with your personal ideas about how government should be. Now, if you want to apply that ideology to your IC conduct, then fine. But there's no need to try to bring about the creation of OOC/game-wide rules stopping one-party systems overall; or as this discussion has now turned to, a prohibition on one-player RP.
Thank you.
