Particracy Forum

Hey everyone,

So as some of you have noticed on the Discord there's been discussion with regards to how the Security Council elections are conducted. Currently, all nations are have the opportunity to vote for each seat through in-game legislation. This has been the policy for over a year and has made the tabulation of votes simple (though time consuming) for Moderation. However the issue has been raised that now that system has become obstructive to RP as the roleplay scene of the community has been slowing down and many nations (either empty or primarily played in by users who play Particracy for the game itself rather than the RP) have been interacting less with the system, which has stagnated votes and entrenched a few nations as inactive winners.

There are a number of alternatives we can pursue which would shift the electoral power from nations inactive in RP to those which do have active roleplayers inhabiting them, such as the implementation of a Seat E like system for the other four SC Seats to one I've spoken with Drax about which would give nations active in the General Assembly the power to elect SC representatives.

I'm opening this thread to hopefully begin a dialogue in the community regarding the current situation with the SC elections, and discuss if we should change the election system, and if so than what alternative should we adopt. Please, feel free to offer your thoughts and ideas.

I personally thing the Seat E system would be the best option. And earlier on discord you talked about that questioning the validity of the votes. A possible solution could be as simple as having players post a link to a bill about passing of their vote.

I do not have any real objections to doing what we are doing about Security Council elections but when General Assembly contemplated holding them we realized counting under current system would have been really tedious.

The Seat E system would be much easier. What though would we be losing? Well, inactive nations would have no vote. That would disrupt planning by candidates and change nature of voting process. But it would mean those actually playing and voting would control result.

Can we still vote for ourselves?

The founding principle of the World Congress was participation by all nations. Call me an optimistic fool but I believe that the current low active, low population status of PT will pass. Why? Because it has happened several times before. That said, I'm not opposed to adopting the system Chitin proposes until activity picks up.

Personally, I have no objection to doing SC elections as they are being done. I share Reddy's guarded optimism about future operations.

But if there should be a decision to go to active only voting system could be done in at least two ways. One is check what active countries have as vote not everybody's. I do not know if this is possible but seems like it could be.

Second would be similar to Seat E; authorized party reports what is on national variable as SC vote on voting thread. Disputes could resulrt in seeing who has authority to report and what actually is on variable.

Reddy wrote:The founding principle of the World Congress was participation by all nations. Call me an optimistic fool but I believe that the current low active, low population status of PT will pass. Why? Because it has happened several times before. That said, I'm not opposed to adopting the system Chitin proposes until activity picks up.

Perhaps the most optimism I have seen in this community in sometime; while I share some similar sentiments, I don't think we'll quite get back to where we were. I think the toxicity of some people have driven off some dedicated community members after years of abuse and neglect. That being said, I think that the current system should remain and we use the system of replacing those inactive seats but perhaps make a special exception for time.