Consultation on early election & treaty-locking tactics

[utoronto]

As Aquinas would very well know (considering the situation in the country in which I'm currently active), I would be in favour of his suggestion (proposal?) to set limits, and if violated to punish the offending party with a seat reset. To be honest, it negatively affects both long-time players and new alike, because ATM it's open to abuse by everyone, both old and new (the latter in my situation).

E.g. In the past 4 game years, my country has gone through 16+ elections. IMHO, that's ridiculous. It's preventing parties from either regaining (for the older parties) or gaining (newer parties) any visibility, and it's starting to really piss. me. off.

[EEL Mk2]

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).

I support this, with the caveat that I'd prefer a system where the rule could be contravened with a legitimate justification, either RP-wise or if a party deactivated, leaving vacant seats. Also, if the country in question has a constitutional RP law regarding early elections, that law, if more restrictive than the general rule that you've outlined, should supersede the general rule.

Treaties which were created by the player in order to "lock" the nation could be simply deleted.

I think that we have to define "lock". As I've made clear below, I respectfully object to Amazeroth's definition, which specifies that the majority of variables have to be locked. This does not take into account the fact that visibility exists in multiple areas.

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.

This is a concern, but if there is a legitimate RP justification for having signed up to those treaties, then it would be too harsh and inflexible for us to put a blanket ban on such conduct unless moderation can prove intent to disadvantage new parties, which obviously would be nearly impossible in most circumstances.

[Amazeroth]

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).

I support this, with the caveat that I'd prefer a system where the rule could be contravened with a legitimate justification, either RP-wise or if a party deactivated, leaving vacant seats. Also, if the country in question has a constitutional RP law regarding early elections, that law, if more restrictive than the general rule that you've outlined, should supersede the general rule.

I think in the extremely rare circumstances that there are valid RP reasons for more than 3 early elections in a row (which aren't just invented by a good RPer in order to legitimate his use of the early election tactic), it there would be made an exception. We could codify that of course, in order to prevent misunderstandings, with the usual point that strong RP reasons can justify exceptions.

Treaties which were created by the player in order to "lock" the nation could be simply deleted.

I think that we have to define "lock". As I've made clear below, I respectfully object to Amazeroth's definition, which specifies that the majority of variables have to be locked. This does not take into account the fact that visibility exists in multiple areas.

It does, but you don't need it in multiple areas to get elected. And some areas are relatively small (military, religion, and especially ecology), so that one or more treaties effectively locking one of these would not have to be seen as an exploit. The definition wouldn't be that the majority of variables have to be locked, but that an amount has to be locked that effectively prohibits the accumulation of enough visibility to realistically get elected (respective to visibility, and not opinion, of course) - since that's the qualifier for when this becomes exploitative.

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.

This is a concern, but if there is a legitimate RP justification for having signed up to those treaties, then it would be too harsh and inflexible for us to put a blanket ban on such conduct unless moderation can prove intent to disadvantage new parties, which obviously would be nearly impossible in most circumstances.

This is extremely theoretical, and as far as I know has never happened, especially since almost all legitimate and long-established treaties allow for more than one option, or are non-compatible with each other. So what we're talking about here would be the work of an ingenious player, and while I don't doubt that some here would be able to pull it off, it's not something that would ever need to concern 99% of all the players.

[EEL Mk2]

And some areas are relatively small (military, religion, and especially ecology), so that one or more treaties effectively locking one of these would not have to be seen as an exploit.

It would surely have to depend on how important certain issues in the mind of the electorate. If defence policy was of key importance in your country (think Israel; I can't name a Particracy country off the top of my head), then locking the military section would be problematic. Similarly, if religious policy was very important (think Iran), the same would be the case. Under those circumstances, it might be considered exploitative if even small sections were locked.

Otherwise, I think that we can come to an amicable agreement.

[errant sperm]

I have a solution for the treaty locking problem and suggestions for the early elections problem:

-Treaty Locking: Make a rule that 1/4 of laws in each legislative category must remain entirely unlocked.

-Early Elections: I am employing this tactic right now in Valruzia and, admittedly, my RP reasons for doing it are pretty weak. (with control of the executive branch I announced that the house of envoys was dissolved and a new constitution must be passed unanimously) I feel a little guilty for doing it but not guilty enough to stop yet. The reason I chose Valruzia is because the nation looked to be inactive and I wanted to run a nation on my own for a while like many of the other nations in the game are being run. Unfortunately for me, the previous ruling party that seemed inactive to me, reactivated. Then soon after, 2 other parties joined the nation. I was a bit frustrated by this but I found this early election tactic and it has worked so far. I was actually surprised to find that it wasn't against the rules. I was pleasantly surprised that it actually worked, although I would hate to be on the other end of it. However, to be fair to myself, the former ruling party was asleep at the wheel, by not keeping its visibility up, and is now facing the consequences. Anyway that's my story but what is my solution?
-Suggestion 1: Modify the game to allow parties to increase their visibility without voting. Make a function that will allow parties to take a position on something without actually having a vote. The more liberal the media laws, the more they can do it. The less liberal the media laws, the less they can do. The following polices should be factor to how much parties can raise their visibility through non voting means:
1) Internet Regulation
2) The government's policy regarding regulation of media content
3) Privacy protection for those in the public eye
4) International media content regulation
No matter the setting of these polices, active parties should always be able to increase their visibility. You should be able to increase your visibility once a month. This rewards people for being active. Whoever works the hardest can get the most visibility.
-Suggestion 2: Make it so bills don't go back to debate phase after an election. The selection of the parties does not change after an election, just the appropriate number of seats.
-Suggestion 3: Don't allow a bill for early elections to pass immediately. Have it pass at the deadline or a month later than other bills.
-Suggestion 4: Make visibility drop faster. For me this helps in 2 ways. It would drop everyone's visibility to none faster, which would make everything equal quickly if someone was using early election tactics. Also this rewards the more active parties. People always want change so this forces parties to keep putting new ideas out there to stay relevant, making the game more realistic in my opinion.
-Suggestion 5: If the other suggestions are too difficult, I would just get rid of early elections. Based on my experience with the game so far, they are mostly used by players who are brand new to the game and put a motion for early elections as soon as they start, without understanding that they have to build visibility first. The United States doesn't have early elections so I don't think you would be taking much away from the realism of the game. Maybe compensate for this by making it possible to lower the election cycle to as low as 12 months instead of 24 months.

[EEL Mk2]

Many of your proposals, while being perhaps theoretically sound, would require changes to the game mechanics, which is not really feasible.

[Polites]

I still think there are legitimate and non-dickish uses for the two tactics. It is often frustrating when a recently started RP (such as a major war, or a newly created empire) are threatened by the emergence of new players in one of the key nations. In that case, the use of the two tactics can delay a regime change in order for the RP to run its natural course. So instead of a blanket ban why not leave this at Moderation's discretion, making it clear that while these tactics are discouraged and may be used as evidence against a difficult or uncooperative player, they are tolerated if the end result is good RP?

There is also the issue that these two tactics (as well as 1-5-72 and hereditary HoS cabinet making) are the only non-RP systems for simulating a dictatorship. In instances where it is used, the early election tactic should not be regarded as a literal call to the polls, but can be RPd as the government's repression of opposition movements, just like how the most commonly used mechanism for monarchies does not mean that "." is literally the Head of State.

[EEL Mk2]

So instead of a blanket ban why not leave this at Moderation's discretion, making it clear that while these tactics are discouraged and may be used as evidence against a difficult or uncooperative player, they are tolerated if the end result is good RP?

This is an exception that I think most members of the Particracy community will be happy to accept, although I'll leave them to speak for themselves. For my own part I think it makes sense.

In instances where it is used, the early election tactic should not be regarded as a literal call to the polls, but can be RPd as the government's repression of opposition movements

The problem with this is that the early election can often prevent new parties from gaining any visibility at all, whereas IRL even an oppressive government cannot prevent opposition from gaining visibility, unless it's a really oppressive government, in which case I imagine that a constitutional RP law mandating a one-party state would be a more suitable arrangement.

[Polites]

In instances where it is used, the early election tactic should not be regarded as a literal call to the polls, but can be RPd as the government's repression of opposition movements

The problem with this is that the early election can often prevent new parties from gaining any visibility at all, whereas IRL even an oppressive government cannot prevent opposition from gaining visibility, unless it's a really oppressive government, in which case I imagine that a constitutional RP law mandating a one-party state would be a more suitable arrangement.

Sure, but this is an instance where game mechanics are used for their effect rather than their stated goal. Specifically, the effect of the early election tactic is preventing opposition parties from gaining seats, which in terms of game mechanics can only be achieved if said parties have 0 visibility. This does not mean that the parties in question cannot be RPd as being visible or popular.

[EEL Mk2]

Specifically, the effect of the early election tactic is preventing opposition parties from gaining seats, which in terms of game mechanics can only be achieved if said parties have 0 visibility. This does not mean that the parties in question cannot be RPd as being visible or popular.

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.