Particracy Forum

Narikaton recently had an election. We've now got an issue.

Code: Select all

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY[?]: currently 159 seats[?], will be 83 after next election

We've only got 83 seats distributed by the election, though. 159 is the number of seats distributed in this election (83) plus the number of seats held by the last party prior to this election (76). A recent cabinet bill, supported by both parties in the cabinet and having enough of the legislature (42/83 = 50%+1) did not pass when the month change occurred. I am now worried that nothing will pass/fail correctly because PT thinks we need 50% of 159, not 50% of 83.

Can this please be forwarded to Wouter? It's essentially a gamebreaking bug.

TheNewGuy wrote:Narikaton recently had an election. We've now got an issue.

Code: Select all

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY[?]: currently 159 seats[?], will be 83 after next election

We've only got 83 seats distributed by the election, though. 159 is the number of seats distributed in this election (83) plus the number of seats held by the last party prior to this election (76). A recent cabinet bill, supported by both parties in the cabinet and having enough of the legislature (42/83 = 50%+1) did not pass when the month change occurred. I am now worried that nothing will pass/fail correctly because PT thinks we need 50% of 159, not 50% of 83.

Can this please be forwarded to Wouter? It's essentially a gamebreaking bug.

It's not a bug, and has nothing to do with the seats.
The Chancellor is a part of the cabinet. The Chancellor is from a party that voted against the cabinet proposal.
The same issue arose before: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4697

Siggon Kristov wrote:

TheNewGuy wrote:Narikaton recently had an election. We've now got an issue.

Code: Select all

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY[?]: currently 159 seats[?], will be 83 after next election

We've only got 83 seats distributed by the election, though. 159 is the number of seats distributed in this election (83) plus the number of seats held by the last party prior to this election (76). A recent cabinet bill, supported by both parties in the cabinet and having enough of the legislature (42/83 = 50%+1) did not pass when the month change occurred. I am now worried that nothing will pass/fail correctly because PT thinks we need 50% of 159, not 50% of 83.

Can this please be forwarded to Wouter? It's essentially a gamebreaking bug.

It's not a bug, and has nothing to do with the seats.
The Chancellor is a part of the cabinet. The Chancellor is from a party that voted against the cabinet proposal.
The same issue arose before: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4697

Ah, wow. FASCINATING. I didn't know this, after ten years playing. That throws quite a wrench into the plans. Thanks, Siggon. ANYWAY, the total seats bug is still an issue, but likely won't get fixed, so I guess nevermind.

#SiggonForMod

TheNewGuy wrote:ANYWAY, the total seats bug is still an issue,

Yeah, that thing is weird.

TheNewGuy wrote:but likely won't get fixed, so I guess nevermind.

You can have the mods tell Wouter. He did come back to Classic a few times recently when stuff went wrong.

Thanks Siggon. Yes, the Head of Government is counted as a member of the Cabinet, so if the elected Head of State is also Head of Government, a Cabinet bill will not pass without his/her party's support. BTW this is mentioned in one of my new proposed FAQs (see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6170&start=20#p87327 ), so let me know if you think I can improve the explanation there.

The total seats thing is weird, but I've got a feeling I've seen it before in the past, and that it usually auto-corrects after a while. I will let Wouter know, though, just in case it's either something to worry about or something he can easily fix.

I've been keeping up, just in case I was wrong. It seems the only reason the cabinet proposal failed was the same one I elaborated on.

With the passage of this bill, which required a supermajority, we can see that the game isn't counting ghost seats for bill votes. For the purpose of bills, the game is still reading the seat number as 83, not 159. If it was reading it as 159, the bill would have failed because 83 is less than 53% of 159.