Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Reddy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:43 am

We want to consult the community on a number of proposed changes.

World Congress & Security Council

The World Congress & Security Council have been a success but it would be fair to say that the elections are becoming less than competitive. We suspect that this might be because they are held too frequently and thus losing their lustre somewhat and making it more difficult for challengers to organise campaigns.

Moderation proposes lengthening the term of each Security Council to three months (or more). Elections would be held quarterly or even less frequently.

Deletion of Treaties

This has always been a controversial topic as some players whether rightly or wrongly, use treaties as a method of storing information and valuable game lore. Moderation sympathises with them and we realise that treaties are not always treaties as they are meant to be in the legal sense. We propose to amend the relevant rules and end deletion of treaties merely because they have not been ratified. Deletion would now only be possible at the request of the creator of the treaty. Currently treaties which are over 50 IG (in-game) years old and have no ratifications or are over 200 IG years old and have fewer than 2 ratifications can be deleted without input from the creator.

Deletion of Party Organisations

We want to reform this for the same reasons as stated for treaties. Party organisations would only be deleted at the request of the player who created the organisation. Currently they can be deleted when they have no active members and are also more than 30 IG years old.

Everyone's welcome to express their views and help Moderation reach the best decision possible on each of the issues. :)

Edit: Just to be clear, the proposals do not extend to organisations and treaties created by inactive parties. Those ones will still be deleted. As for the party organisation proposal, we propose to reduce the current standard of "minimum of 1 active member" to just one member of any kind. We also propose scrapping the 20 org limit which currently operates in a manner where an organisation created by someone who has full membership in at least 20 orgs can be deleted.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Polites » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:49 pm

I like all proposed changes. Just one nitpick: when you say that Treaties and Orgs can only be deleted at the request of the creator, I assume this won't extend to inactive parties, right? Otherwise we'd be stuck with a growing list of unused treaties and orgs created by people who've left the game never to return.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Reddy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:59 pm

Polites wrote:I like all proposed changes. Just one nitpick: when you say that Treaties and Orgs can only be deleted at the request of the creator, I assume this won't extend to inactive parties, right? Otherwise we'd be stuck with a growing list of unused treaties and orgs created by people who've left the game never to return.


Yes, that is what I meant to say. I could have been clearer there, my apologies about that.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Adithya » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:18 pm

Yes,I do agree with these proposed changes and particularly with the security council one,as nation's cannot get sufficient endorsements within a month.And a three month time frame will enable nation's to campaign effectively.
Adithya
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:56 am

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby jamescfm » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:52 pm

I disagree with shortening SC election terms; this would make it far harder to boot off inactive nations. Consider how quickly Hawu and Talmoria were able to be removed- we would've had to wait an extra two months under the proposed change.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Auditorii » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:56 pm

I think Moderation or at least the RP Team should be able to remove a member of the Security Council for inactivity and the runner up gains the seat. The whole point of the World Congress and the Security Council was the spur activity, since I've come back I've seen some activity.
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby TPPDJT » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:53 am

Seems agreeable.
"Whoever excommunicates me, excommunicates God." - Girolamo Savonarola

"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." - Desiderius Erasmus
User avatar
TPPDJT
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:59 am
Location: Campus Martius

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Akhenaten » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:54 am

jamescfm wrote:I disagree with shortening SC election terms; this would make it far harder to boot off inactive nations. Consider how quickly Hawu and Talmoria were able to be removed- we would've had to wait an extra two months under the proposed change.


Considering there have been recent concerns about SC nations becoming inactive I agree. If the goal is to keep SC elections more competitive, could deleting the proposals from the game after the election to reset every nation's vote, then reintroducing the proposals be an option? This would remove some of the inertia from the system.
Akhenaten
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:34 pm

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Auditorii » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:06 am

Akhenaten wrote:
jamescfm wrote:I disagree with shortening SC election terms; this would make it far harder to boot off inactive nations. Consider how quickly Hawu and Talmoria were able to be removed- we would've had to wait an extra two months under the proposed change.


Considering there have been recent concerns about SC nations becoming inactive I agree. If the goal is to keep SC elections more competitive, could deleting the proposals from the game after the election to reset every nation's vote, then reintroducing the proposals be an option? This would remove some of the inertia from the system.


Why not enforce an RP Bill to confirm the vote?
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Security Council Elections, Treaties and Party Orgs

Postby Akhenaten » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:35 am

Auditorii wrote:
Akhenaten wrote:
jamescfm wrote:I disagree with shortening SC election terms; this would make it far harder to boot off inactive nations. Consider how quickly Hawu and Talmoria were able to be removed- we would've had to wait an extra two months under the proposed change.


Considering there have been recent concerns about SC nations becoming inactive I agree. If the goal is to keep SC elections more competitive, could deleting the proposals from the game after the election to reset every nation's vote, then reintroducing the proposals be an option? This would remove some of the inertia from the system.


Why not enforce an RP Bill to confirm the vote?


That would work too I suppose but it puts more pressure on the mods/RP team to fulfill essentially the same role.
Akhenaten
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:34 pm

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests