Consultation on early election & treaty-locking tactics

[Aquinas]

Many of you will be familiar with the treaty-locking and early election election tactics, although it is also true that many players spend years in the game without ever coming across them. To briefly describe each tactic:

Treaty-locking is when a player or group of players create and ratify treaties which "lock in" all or most of the nation's legislative options. This effectively makes it difficult or impossible for new players to changes laws or raise their visibility levels, because it is necessary for them to get the legislature to withdraw from the treaty before they can begin to change the laws. And withdrawing from treaties requires the support of over 50% of the members of the legislature.

The early election tactic is when a player (it is almost always a single player, but can be a group of players) calls frequent early election, making it impossible for other parties to pass bills. This means other parties cannot increase their visibility levels, making it difficult or impossible for them to win seats.

Both of these tactics have been controversial ever since the game opened a decade ago. Their merits and demerits have been debated in the past, although so far, they have always been allowed under the rules.

The Moderation Team believes the time has come to review this issue and open a consultation with the player base over whether these tactics should continue to be legal in the future. Some of the factors behind our decision to do this are:

- Particracy would benefit from having more players, and the tactics in question are notorious for disillusioning new players just as they are trying to get to grips with the game.

- The new role-play laws (see sections 10 & 11 of the 'Rules of the Game') mean it is possible to role-play one-party state systems without recourse to these tactics.

- The tough new rules on cultural enforcement and renaming, reactivation & early election requests already somewhat increase the burden on less experienced players who are less familiar with the conventions of the game. In view of this, it may seem fair to spare these players the experience of coming across early election and treaty-locking tactics.

- On a technical level, stopping these tactics ought not to be too difficult, as treaties can be removed by Moderators, and players who persist in the early election tactic despite warnings can, for example, be subject to a seat reset (ie. have their number of seats set to 0).

We look forward to hearing your views on these issues, and will study them very carefully before making any decision.

[EEL Mk2]

The first thing to bear in mind, in my view, is that Particracy, as a political simulation, can draw guidance on these issues from how they are handled in the real world.

IRL, laws relating to early elections fall into three broad categories
- fixed terms,
- semi-fixed terms (i.e. early elections only in the event of motions of no confidence or other "triggers"), and
- unfixed terms.

As we know, fixed terms are not technically possible in this game, although constitutional RP can be used to get around that problem. Obviously, in these countries, early election tactics should be strictly prohibited.

Should constitutional RP specify semi-fixed terms, moderation would have to consider whether or not there is a legitimate reason for an early election - a motion of no confidence, a defeat on a budget bill, and so on - when deciding whether or not such an action should be subject to sanctions. Of course, a party in a position to use this early election tactic is unlikely to suffer such legislative defeats except if they voted against their own budget/motion of confidence, and if doing so is permitted (which, IRL, it sometimes is), then we have a de facto unfixed term situation, whatever constitutional RP might say.

Which brings me to unfixed terms. Under a system of unfixed terms, obviously the legislature or the head of government or whoever has the power to request an election whenever they choose. However, realistically, parties and governments would become very unpopular if they regularly dragged the voters to the polls. I would therefore suggest the early election tactic in a country with unfixed terms be banned except in three circumstances:
- if the intended victim of the tactic consents (I mean, you have no-one to blame but yourself in that case; this may be a controversial exception),
- if the early election occurs in response to a legitimate trigger like a defeat on a budget bill, or
- if more than half the legislative term has elapsed (this is meant to reflect the fact that governments rarely call back-to-back elections without a good cause).

I think that this last provision would be subject to some degree of flexibility in light of the differing number of bill proposals given to parties, which obviously affects the ability of smaller parties to gain visibility. So a country which restricts them to 5 proposals a year should have this half-term limit strictly enforced, whereas some leeway would be given in a country where that number is instead 50.

Of course, there are situations where there is no constitutional RP law about whether or not terms are fixed. I think that it would be unfair to impose upon countries fixed terms without a conscious decision on the part of the players there, given how restrictive such an imposition would be. However, there is not a huge difference between semi-fixed terms and unfixed terms under this scenario, which means that imposing a certain system would not be so egregious, and moreover, it might encourage players to create a clear constitutional RP law.

On what basis would we impose such a system? In the absence of constitutional RP law, I would say that it would have to reflect the constitutional structure of the real-life country your country is modelled on. So, for example, if you had a German-speaking nation, it would be subject to the semi-fixed term system. If it was based on Australia, it would be subject to an unfixed term system.

Now, as for treaty-locking, well, again, I think that moderation would have to considered whether or not the treaty reflects what a treaty would be like in the real world. Generally, for example, a treaty guaranteeing freedom of political expression would be more plausible than, say, a treaty which regulates the provision of libraries. I would think that you'd be allowed to get away with ratifying one or two implausible treaties, but if you are a signatory to a large number of such implausible treaties, or one large treaty with many implausible provisions, moderation should be open to considering that an abuse. This is especially the case if the treaty has a vague title and contains largely unrelated clauses.

Moderation should also consider, in these cases, whether or not there is a legitimate RP basis for the treaty, or whether someone just dreamt it up in a RP vacuum and decided that it should be a good idea. Moreover, the number of signatories is also a consideration. If the treaty is clearly intended for ratification by only one country, it is obviously an abuse unless it is used as a substitute for a constitutional RP bill.

[Polites]

I personally strongly dislike both tactics; I only used the early election one once, and I never treaty-locked a nation, but I think they should continue to be allowed. In the case of the former, a player may wish to continue a certain RP without the potential disruption caused by a new player, while the latter I think is ultimately impossible to fully prevent. A 300-article treaty is easy to delete, sure, but what about nations that ratify a large number of disparate treaties, each with its own potential RP justification? Not to mention that both of these tactics are, in the end, bound to fail, while having the advantage of allowing for a temporary prolongation of the life of an RP or regime.

[Amazeroth]

Actually, the end of both tactics will come when the party employing them has lost enough visibility - which takes a long time, considering that the other party has none. It's definitely true that it will end at some time, but as long as no old parties are returning - which is the only case where I ever saw those tactics actually fail - it will take weeks or even months.

As for the simulationist view - it's hard to view them in such a way, because both mechanics that make these so exploitative (international treaties mechanically prohibiting options for laws in one case, early elections resetting all bills to debate statues in the other) are not good simulations of a real world. Both are ways to run the game that usually aren't problematic and actually make sense game-wise (except when they're exploited), but when they're exploited, the simulation pretty much breaks down.

Also, I think it has to be clear that "treaty locking" refers to - as Aquinas said - the locking of all or most laws, not just "a lot". It occurs when it becomes impossible (or nearly impossible - most laws) for a party to gather any visibility, because it can't make any new bills (or only irrelevant ones). So "unrealistic" treaties, or even treaties only ratified by one nation wouldn't become illegal per se, only when they are so vast (or so many) that parties can't acquire visibility.

Similarly, if the early election tactic would be ruled illegal, early elections themselves would still be legal - the exception would be only if a player triggers early elections constantly in order to prohibit new parties from gaining visilibity, which means it would have to happen more than once.

[EEL Mk2]

Also, I think it has to be clear that "treaty locking" refers to - as Aquinas said - the locking of all or most laws, not just "a lot". It occurs when it becomes impossible (or nearly impossible - most laws) for a party to gather any visibility, because it can't make any new bills (or only irrelevant ones).

I think that it is not correct to view visibility as some sort of amorphous aggregate. The game mechanics differentiate between visibilities in different areas of policy, so far as I'm aware, and election results are calculated on the basis of that. It would be unfair to a party which could gain adequate visibility in say economics or religion, but was otherwise unable to make a splash, to define treaty-locking as narrowly as you do. Given that, I would say that it should also be considered an abuse if the overwhelming bulk of laws pertinent to one area of policy were treaty-locked, even if the majority of laws generally were subject to change.

early elections themselves would still be legal - the exception would be only if a player triggers early elections constantly in order to prohibit new parties from gaining visilibity, which means it would have to happen more than once.

I don't think that "constantly" necessary should be a criterion for identifying the early election tactic. So long as is no legitimate RP justification for an early election which is clearly in breach of the guidelines I proposed above (or whatever guidelines you seek to implement in their place), I think that there is a case for moderation to potentially view it as an abuse, given that a lack of RP justification for what is clearly unrealistic would immediately suggest a motive not related to RP (i.e. screwing over new parties). Of course, if this is done repetitively it is much easier to identify, but I don't think that repeat offending ought to form part of the definition, if you will, of the abuse of early elections.

[Polites]

In that case, I support a ban on treaty-locking if it is taken to mean the tactic whereby it is impossible or almost impossible to propose new laws, as that tactic, apart from not allowing new players to gain visibility, stifles RP. It can also be used against the player that introduced the treaty-lock in the first place if a party with higher visibility reactivates (I did that in Sekowo once, leaving Iori's treaty in place after I reactivated and gained a majority). The early election tactic I would leave in place though, as it has its uses, such as maintaining a regime, continuing an RP, preventing a nation raid, or delaying a difficult player's access to power.

[Arizal1]

Here are my toughts on the subject :

Treaty-Locking :
As I understand it, treaties are meant to reflect international agreements. It is then obvious that if a treaty only concerns one country, as are probably most "treaty-locking" tactics, and if nobody has expressed any will to join it, this treaty is a fraud whose sole purpose is to harm other parties. I believe this criterium, along with another which would be that most laws in a vital area of issues are blocked, can apply to most cases of treaty-locking tactics.

If I understand clearly, treaty-locking hurts new parties because revoking a treaty doesn't gain any visibility to a party, and thus doesn't help an invisible party to gain seats. If it did, I would see no problem, but it isn't possible to do any major change in the current version, and there is the problem of how voting against a treaty could affect visibility.

So the problem is that it prevents players to effectively play the game.

Now, what are the moderators powers? I read that moderators can reset the number of seats of a player, which could resemble an electorate sanction to a party which is too confortably in power and plagued by scandals. I think moderators can also remove bills which are not in effect.

So, at the onset, if a player screams against a treaty-locking tactic, the moderators could prevent the tactic to be done in the first place. If it is already in place, they could threaten the "dead-weight" player* to use the "0 seats" sanction if they do not reach a reasonable agreement with the new player.

Early Elections :
About early elections, I understand that they are only detrimental if they prevent other players to gain visibility. For this to be the case, the player or the coalition in power must be majoritary, which is probably usually the case when a new player comes and has 0 seats.

This one is a little bit more tricky to me because, unlike false treaties, early elections are used in real-life to pull the carpet under the feet of other parties (to have an advantage over them). However, in real life, parties usually have other means than voting for laws to make their positions clear.

As I understand Aquinas position, two main criteria are in order : the bill must harm other parties in their effort to incease their visibility level and there must be more than one occurence. The fact that this tactic is used in the real world makes me think that it is more legitimate than the first one I adressed, so it shouldn't be agressively tracked.

However, EEL Mk2 raises another point, I believe : such a tactic shouldn't be used without an rp reason.

So what if we said that an early election would be considered as illegitimate :
- If It has no rp reason
A dissenting player could then report it to the moderators for it.
It would be immediatly shut down or the player(s) responsible would be sanctioned.

This could probably take care of the less active players using this tactic.

However,
- If it has an r-p reason (as futile as the king is dead),
A player disagreeing with it would have to have suffered it two times in a row and it would have to have hampered his ability to raise his visibility by rejecting one or more of his proposed bills. Only then could he report it.

Constitutional r-ps are also one way to disallow such tactics country by country, as EEL mk2 says. In the case of a constitutional rp regulating the use of early elections, it would be far easier, since those constitutional rps, if they were well written, would simply disallow early elections of the kind we sought to limit.

* I say that because to me a player which only stays in place without accomplishing anything in the game and which prevents others to play is a dead-weight. I understand that some players like to play alone as the rulers of countries, but they shouldn't disturb the main game by doing so.

[Polites]

Thing is, not all "Treaties" are supposed to represent a bilateral or multilateral agreement between several nations; just like how Party Organizations are sometimes used for entities that are not, stricto sensu, international organizations of political parties (most notably Churches are often represented as Organizations), Treaties are sometimes used to represent other entities, like Constitutions or agreements between a Nation and a Church. To ban all Treaties created for a single nation would be excessive, and remove a frequent example of game mechanics creatively used for purposes other than those they were created for.

As for early election tactics, maybe the same limitations as for nation raids could be implemented. Calling frequent early elections would then have to be justified by RP and not be based on malice towards a player or group of players.

[Reddy]

Treaty-locking is annoying of course but it is very easy to reverse once you win an absolute majority, it only takes 32 hours. If you don't win an absolute majority of seats in a treaty-locked country, you still wouldn't be able to change the laws anyway if the country hadn't been treaty-locked and if a majority opposed to your proposals. Treaty-locking is also arguably similar to that rule which allows for the banning of all political parties in a country and creation of one party states, one could even say the latter is more restrictive. So cracking down on treaty-locking would arguably be inconsistent with that rule since the rule clearly illustrates that limitations are allowed and the rule itself is a more extreme limitation which requires a supermajority to repeal.

Early elections are a little more difficult to get around. However as Moderation has always advised in the past, if you stick around for a while, the insecure player's party will lose visibility too. But let's also look at it this way: how often is this tactic ever used and would anyone be able to show up every seven months or whatever to call an early election in order to keep blocking a new/unwanted player? I doubt that very much.

So to sum it up, I don't think any regulation or this dreadful sounding 'zero seat sanction' are needed here.

[Aquinas]

If we were to have a rule against the early election tactic, the simplest way to tackle it would be to have a rule which stated, for example, that a majority party may not call an early election more than 3 times in 3 years (or whatever the limit might be). If a party broke that rule, they could be warned not to do it again, and if they persisted in the tactic, they could be subjected to a seat reset (ie. seats set to 0). That would deal pretty effectively with the issue.

Tackling treaty-locking would be a little more complex. Treaties which were created by the player in order to "lock" the nation could be simply deleted. There could be cases, though, where a majority party has signed his nation up to range of "legitimate"/long-established treaties as part of a tactic to lock down the nation. In these cases, Moderation would obviously not want to delete those treaties. So the only option might be to temporarily inactivate the party then call an election, so the other parties can win enough seats to withdraw their nation from the treaties.

But let's also look at it this way: how often is this tactic ever used and would anyone be able to show up every seven months or whatever to call an early election in order to keep blocking a new/unwanted player? I doubt that very much.

I can tell you this tactic has been used for prolonged periods in the past and it has also been used recently.

The early election tactic I would leave in place though, as it has its uses, such as maintaining a regime, continuing an RP, preventing a nation raid, or delaying a difficult player's access to power.

Ah, but you can't guarantee the "difficult player" (however one defines that) will always be the one with without the seats!