Consultation on early election & treaty-locking tactics

[Polites]

I think that without the consent of the party being suppressed, this could potentially be seen as an abuse, unless it is made clear, perhaps in one of those OOC nation guides that some countries have, that the country is governed by an oppressive regime (and if you still join that country, we can imply an implicit consent). However, under circumstances where the party in question consents to being victimised, so to speak, it seems unnecessary for the early election tactic to be used. They can simply exist not vote on legislation (while obviously making their position clear RP-wise) or even not exist except on the forum. (If I recall correctly, I may have done this in the past.) Given this, the early election tactic seems entirely superfluous in the circumstances that you describe.

Anything that prevents a party from gaining power can potentially be seen as an abuse, and many players, especially new ones, dislike oppressive regimes and are thus unlikely to want to RP themselves as being victimized. The early election tactic is inherently nonconsensual, but that in itself is not a bad thing; a lot of rules and game mechanics are nonconsensual as well, this is a political simulation game after all. My argument is that, although the simulationist understanding of these tactics does not always work (RL dictatorships don't generally have elections every few months), that is not in itself an argument against them, considering they are usually used for their effect rather than their description. That being said, I would distinguish between using these tactics for specific temporary goals, and their abusive long-term implementation designed to leave a player in permanent control of a nation.

[EEL Mk2]

The early election tactic is inherently nonconsensual, but that in itself is not a bad thing; a lot of rules and game mechanics are nonconsensual as well, this is a political simulation game after all.

I think, though, that members of this community, especially newer ones, are entitled to assume that the game mechanics will be used in good faith. Moreover I would say that whereas rule and mechanics apply to all parties regardless of size or age, the early election tactic is only available to, and can only benefit, larger and more established parties. In this sense there is a distinction between the early election tactic and the normal use of game mechanics that goes beyond simply the presence or absence of consent.

My argument is that, although the simulationist understanding of these tactics does not always work (RL dictatorships don't generally have elections every few months), that is not in itself an argument against them, considering they are usually used for their effect rather than their description.

I would accept that argument if there was no alternative to early elections in RPing an oppressive, even one-party, regime. However, given the introduction of moderation-enforced constitutional RP laws which can be used achieve more or less the same thing as the early election tactic, used in the way you describe, would, I'm afraid that that argument does not appear to hold very much water.

[Polites]

Regardless of how the two tactics are justified RP-wise, the fact remains that, unlike the single party constitutional RP rule, they, in the long run, hurt the player that introduces them too. With constitutional RP laws a player can keep them in place for as long as they retain more than 1/3 of seats, which, barring a large number of new players or a well coordinated nation raid, they can do indefinitely. Early elections and treaty-locking on the other hand also prevent the player that uses them from passing bills and thus retaining visibility, meaning that eventually, in at most a couple of months, they can be overthrown (not to mention that these tactics are practically useless against reactivating old players).

Also, these tactics are very rarely used these days anyway. I haven't seen a proper treaty lock in years (not surprising considering the tedium implied by introducing hundreds of variables into a single treaty and making sure all national laws are in compliance), and, apart from Valruzia, I haven't seen any recent use of the early election tactic either.

[Aquinas]

Would anyone like to have a go at drawing up a draft of what a rule restricting the use of the early election tactic and/or treaty-locking could look like?

[EEL Mk2]

Early elections and treaty-locking on the other hand also prevent the player that uses them from passing bills and thus retaining visibility, meaning that eventually, in at most a couple of months, they can be overthrown

They prevent the other players from getting visibility either. And in many cases, if that other player is a new player, there is a good chance that they'll leave in frustration before there is any possibility of what you describe taking place.

[EEL Mk2]

Would anyone like to have a go at drawing up a draft of what a rule restricting the use of the early election tactic and/or treaty-locking could look like?

I'll give the first one a shot.

Abuse of early elections

1. An abuse of early elections will be taken to have occurred when:
   
   1. three or more early elections have occurred in three in-game years or less;
   2. there is no reasonable cause for the said early elections; and
   3. the said early elections have the effect of disadvantaging smaller or less established parties without the consent of the said parties.
2. Any constitutional role-play law relating to early elections more restrictive than the above will supersede the above and be subject to enforcement by Moderation.
3. The abuse of early elections may result in warnings or sanctions from Moderation.

[utoronto]

Would anyone like to have a go at drawing up a draft of what a rule restricting the use of the early election tactic and/or treaty-locking could look like?

I'll give the first one a shot.

Abuse of early elections

1. An abuse of early elections will be taken to have occurred when:
   
   1. three or more early elections have occurred in three in-game years or less;
   2. there is no reasonable cause for the said early elections; and
   3. the said early elections have the effect of disadvantaging smaller or less established parties without the consent of the said parties.
2. Any constitutional role-play law relating to early elections more restrictive than the above will supersede the above and be subject to enforcement by Moderation.
3. The abuse of early elections may result in warnings or sanctions from Moderation.

Not bad. I actually quite like it, but I'd would like to see, perhaps, concrete definitions of the potential sanctions (e.g. seat reset for the offending party).

[EEL Mk2]

I'd would like to see, perhaps, concrete definitions of the potential sanctions (e.g. seat reset for the offending party).

How rigid do you want the rule to be? Should it be something like a warning on the first offence and a set reset on subsequent ones, or do you think that Moderation should have total discretion? Or some combination thereof?

[Aquinas]

If we introduced this rule, a player who used the early election tactic and didn't know it was against the rules would probably just be asked to stop doing it and warned they would be subject to a seat reset if they carried on doing it.

Where it was clear the player already knew the tactic was not allowed, they would probably get a seat reset.

[IdioC]

... many players, especially new ones, dislike oppressive regimes and are thus unlikely to want to RP themselves as being victimized.

I found it quite fun on a couple of occasions. I even inactivated my party for a bit and RPed as a "Batasuna"-esque entity until a heighted wave of multi-ing and abuse of inactive parties made it a bit sensitive for a mod to be influencing a nation (in RP only) with an inactive party.

My argument is that, although the simulationist understanding of these tactics does not always work (RL dictatorships don't generally have elections every few months), that is not in itself an argument against them, considering they are usually used for their effect rather than their description.

I would accept that argument if there was no alternative to early elections in RPing an oppressive, even one-party, regime. However, given the introduction of moderation-enforced constitutional RP laws which can be used achieve more or less the same thing as the early election tactic, used in the way you describe, would, I'm afraid that that argument does not appear to hold very much water.

The counter to this is that without the Early Election gambit, these one party systems are actually incredibly vulnerable as other parties -- as they gain visibility -- gain electoral bonuses for not having voter apathy through constant defeats. Quite often newbies would turn a well-developed RP nation into some cookie-cutter anglophone social democracy without being aware of the forum, cultural protocols and RP. Moderation would have to spend ages reverting all the national variables back to their originals prevent RP abuses, whereas the Early Election gambit always prevented this from happening.

That said, I agree it's not entirely fair on the newbies, so there needs to be a middle way. While you have Moderators with time on their hands, fine, but it's not entirely futureproof to leave it to the RP protocols. If the nest is left empty by a sudden departure for whatever reason, it's a situation waiting to happen.

Also, these tactics are very rarely used these days anyway. I haven't seen a proper treaty lock in years (not surprising considering the tedium implied by introducing hundreds of variables into a single treaty and making sure all national laws are in compliance).

...it was always easier to just sign up to lots of little treaties with a few clauses each, especially pre-existing ones. Made it look more legitimate with international treaties that wouldn't get deleted.

---

As for suitable sanctions: I've also had a, "how come it's taken me seven years to think of that?", moment: Rather than a simple seat reset, which would both paralyse the nation until an election and then most likely still give a dominant party their position back to simply restore the status quo, you could inactivate the offending party, force early elections, then reactivate them to give the newbies a chance.

The mere fear of such a total reversal would surely make IC iron-fisted tinpots considerate to the needs of newcomers OOC?