Official Gamemaster thread + GM Council (ONLY) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

This is a the archive of the "PoFo Parliament". A user-run project.
Forum rules: This is a the archive of the "PoFo Parliament". A user-run project.
#1887646
If you are not one of the following you may read this thread, but I humbly request that you NOT post here. PLEASE.

If you are not: Me, Dave, Dan, Okonkwo, Potemkin, or Honi please post your comments elsewhere, it's not hard to open two windows and copy from this thread for posting into another.

We REALLY need the userbase in the game to begin disciplining themselves in this regard.

Thanks so much for bearing with us as we begin sorting out the issues! ;) :D

This thread and the discussion surrounding, begins here:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=104822&start=0

You may comment there all you wish.
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1887763
I appreciate you and Dave's efforts to organise this.

I have no objection and will try to follow the rules you've laid out so far.
User avatar
By Dan
#1887765
I'm curious about bloc voting. You said:

-Block voting is disallowed insomuch as a party leader may enter a thread and vote once for 12 votes worth of voting credits. However, beyond this the parties may vote however they wish. This MUST be instituted. I'm sorry to say it this way, but if you don't like it, you're playing the wrong SIM. Bloc voting as-is is simply not fair to parties who's members are most active. It is unfair to punish them with the rule of law for voting members who are no longer playing. People disappear on the internet too easily. Staying around and playing the game should be rewarded, not penalized.


What are we instituting in its place? Or are the rules going to be more specific.

I can't talk for other parties, but the CA has 7 seats and Sephardi, NYYS, and I are the only ones who actually come on here even remotely regularily. I'm sure other parties also ahve similar situations. In time, the activity of most parties will also vary.

I am not, in principle, opposed to removing bloc voting and I recognize that activity should be encouraged, but I am unsure how else we would work it, while still having each party able to have their full vote, while still allowing full participation.
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1887770
I request a SN-RF members only thread if it is possible given the SN-RF alliance has been established and consolidated for a few weeks I think it's justified to have joined discussions while still maintaining separate party members only threads.

Thank you!
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1887827
HoniSoit wrote:I request a SN-RF members only thread if it is possible given the SN-RF alliance has been established and consolidated for a few weeks I think it's justified to have joined discussions while still maintaining separate party members only threads.

Thank you!


Honi Go ahead and create that, but I won't be requesting it be stickied. The guys will just have to keep it up on their own. :hmm: Sorry.

Dan wrote:What are we instituting in its place? Or are the rules going to be more specific.

I can't talk for other parties, but the CA has 7 seats and Sephardi, NYYS, and I are the only ones who actually come on here even remotely regularily. I'm sure other parties also ahve similar situations. In time, the activity of most parties will also vary.

I am not, in principle, opposed to removing bloc voting and I recognize that activity should be encouraged, but I am unsure how else we would work it, while still having each party able to have their full vote, while still allowing full participation.


Dan- This is a very good question, and one I haven't hammered out just yet. Obviously several parties will have more votes than MPs. I think we need to stipulate something here as your concern is a valid one. We can't force everyone who votes to participate. My thought is simply that we'll need to allocate seats obtained in voting proportinate to the number of MPs with extras being retained by party leadership.

In your case I would say, you get 3 votes, and the other two each get two. You can instruct them to vote how you like, but Sephardi and NYYS must actually cast the ballots in order for their votes to count.

Beyond that I'm open to suggestions.
User avatar
By Dan
#1887831
My thought is simply that we'll need to allocate seats obtained in voting proportinate to the number of MPs with extras being retained by party leadership.

In your case I would say, you get 3 votes, and the other two each get two. You can instruct them to vote how you like, but Sephardi and NYYS must actually cast the ballots in order for their votes to count.

That sounds workable.
User avatar
By Dave
#1887855
ugh I drank too much again

good work everyone

I fear I will have to renege on my commitment on the national background and will instead go to bed

fear not, it will be up tomorrow
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1887860
Dave wrote:I fear I will have to renege on my commitment on the national background and will instead go to bed


You bastard!

I will be crashing in two hours. If whoever of you is up will handle any issues until tomorrow night after this period, I would appreciate it.

Again, with the six of us working together, I think we can pull this out fine. So far the membership seems receptive.
User avatar
By Okonkwo
#1888304
Demosthenes wrote:If whoever of you is up will handle any issues until tomorrow night after this period, I would appreciate it.

I'll be up for about the next 5 hours and I will be available tomorrow to look into some threads. I have some minor work to do however, so I won't be able to look after the forum all day long.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1888509
No problem Okonkwo, we can't babysit all day, just a reminder to you guys to keep an eye out while your on.

As far as I'm concerned, as I've said, your rulings are mine, so just please make notes on discipline while your on.

Those that don't care for this will just have to live with it, as it seems to me to be the only way to keep some kind of reasonable order.

EDIT- Also, for the sticky, if one of you isn't doing too much, it would be great if we had a political summary of the parties and the current vote totals for each party.

I'd like to add it to the sticky as it's own post, probably following the CIA Factbook page that Dave is to work on. (hint, hint)
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1891638
What's your view on the current status of PUC, Demo?

I honestly don't want to see the demise of a significant centrist party but something needs to be done by Nets and AA to revitalise PUC.

Also, I'm not sure how the confidence vote would work out but if we are to have a new election I think we should substantially simplify things - my two cents:

- the single largest party or alliance in terms of votes should be able to form the government - whether it's a majority or a minority government - without the need for a confidence vote (which will unnecessarily complicate things).

- for an alliance to be considered an alliance, it should present a single, unified platform. It cannot be a coalition done on paper by a couple of leaders without actual substance.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1891771
for an alliance to be considered an alliance, it should present a single, unified platform. It cannot be a coalition done on paper by a couple of leaders without actual substance.

I think this is a problem with any political simulation. In the real world, any such alliance has to actually govern a country. This requires a consistent and coherent policy platform (at least in principle) if politically ruinous chaos is to be avoided. We are under no such obligation in this simulation, so the tempation is to 'cheat' in that respect. Trying to prevent such 'cheating' would be difficult, in my opinion.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1892005
HoniSoit wrote:What's your view on the current status of PUC, Demo?

I honestly don't want to see the demise of a significant centrist party but something needs to be done by Nets and AA to revitalise PUC.

Also, I'm not sure how the confidence vote would work out but if we are to have a new election I think we should substantially simplify things - my two cents:

- the single largest party or alliance in terms of votes should be able to form the government - whether it's a majority or a minority government - without the need for a confidence vote (which will unnecessarily complicate things).

- for an alliance to be considered an alliance, it should present a single, unified platform. It cannot be a coalition done on paper by a couple of leaders without actual substance.


I'm not sure yet Honi, but I have to agree all around with what you're saying here. I'm also coming around to the reduced MPs idea. Probably 25 is more than enough at this point. It just seems to be too far beyond the scope to have to deal with coalitions and whatever. No one really has to compromise on anything because it's more fun to just call each other reds and fascists without even really trying, or proposing anythng concrete that could serve as the basis for later compromise. In reading over the Grand Coaltion's thread, even when they tried this, it was bogged down in way too much minutae.
User avatar
By Gnote
#1892867
Demosthenes wrote:I liked this the first time you brought it up, I tend to agree I think...Why don't you put together all your thoughts thus far, in kind of a talking point type-post, and add it to the GM thread "Note?


As per Demo's request in the "Game Changes" thread, I've put together a proposal for how governments could be formed following elections:


Forming Government

1) Election occurs.

2) The clerk counts all votes, determines which are legitimate, and which are spoiled ballots, and then distributes all of the seats in parliament based on the percentage of the vote each party received in the election.

3) The party with the largest number of seats as per the clerk's designation has the first chance to form government. This must take place within one week of the clerk's designation of seats.

4) The largest party is free to choose not to attempt to form government. If this occurs, or if the time period of one week lapses before the attempt to form government is made, the next largest party has the next opportunity.

5) A party attempting to form government will do so by trying to pass an initial piece of legislation. This piece of legislation must contain some key administrative components that the GM and GM council should iron out. Some suggested components:

- tax rates (personal, corporate, property, sales)
- minimum wage
- banking structure
- age of majority and voting age

The point of the legislation is not to put forth the party's entire governing platform, but rather to hit some key components required for the functioning of government. Subsequent legislation will fill out the rest of the platform.

The legislation needn't be so broad as to include the 'political' functions of government. In other words, the party attempting to form government does not need to specify the number of ministries or cabinet positions it will employ, or the people who will occupy them.

6) The attempt to pass the initial legislation will be viewed as a confidence motion. If the motion passes by a majority of votes cast (50%+1 of the votes cast on the confidence motion itself), the party is deemed to have the confidence of the house, and will be allowed to govern until such time as a lack of confidence is displayed in the form of a vote.

7) If a government secures the confidence of the house, but then fails to pass a subsequent piece of legislation it proposes, this will be viewed as a lack of confidence in the government, at which point one of two things will happen:

a) The Game Master notes the lack of confidence in parliament, and calls on citizens to elect a new government.

b) Another party informs the Game Master that it believes it can garner the confidence of the house. The Game Master must then decide whether he or she believes this party does have a legitimate chance to form government. If the Game Master believes this party does, he or she can grant them that opportunity. If their chances appear slim, the Game Master will call an election. If multiple parties request an opportunity to form government, the first chance to gain confidence will lie with the largest of those making the request.



People have expressed some concerns with this proposed method in the past. I'll try to address some of them here:


1) Why should the largest party get the first chance to form government?

Basically, one of the parties needs to have that first chance, and the largest seems to be the most logical, since it was able to garner the most support.


2) What if a combination of other parties has more seats than the largest party?

This will all sort itself out in time. If this combination of other parties is strong, it will be able to block the first attempted legislation by the largest party, and that party will not be able to gain the confidence of the house. This will reoccur until such time that one of the parties within this combination of parties will have a chance to form government. At this point, the combination / coalition will have its chance to seek the confidence of the house.


3) How can parliament display a lack of confidence in a government once they have passed the initial confidence motion?

By voting down subsequent legislation.


4) If the largest party doesn't have sufficient seats to constitute a majority, how would they ever pass a confidence motion?

By building alliances amongst the other members of parliament. Essentially, the largest party gets the first shot to form government, but if they want to garner the confidence of the house, they need to put forth legislation that will be acceptable to enough other MPs. This is where the political part of the game comes in, and is where alliances are built.


5) What about coalitions?

Coalitions will manifest as votes occur. There needn't be any distinctions made between formal and informal coalitions. If two parties agree to work together, they can do so by voting together on various pieces of legislation. If the two parties want to attempt to form government together, they can display their lack of confidence in the current government, and try to seek the confidence of parliament themselves.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1892883
I think is a pretty sound proposal all the way around, and is much more concise work than I could have done if I was copying it all from memory.

SO, council, what are your thoughts?

Keeping in mind I'd like to have this resolved today.
User avatar
By Gnote
#1892887
Demo,

One thing the GM council would need to sort out would be what the required components of the initial legislation (for the confidence motion) would be.

They should be more to do with how the country is to be run (as per the examples I provided) than how the government itself is to be set up. There really isn't any reason for the opposition to micromanage the way the government does its business. In other words, giving the opposition a say in how many and what sort of ministries they are, and who will be in charge of them will lead to way too many problems I think.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1893072
Why is Gnote even posting in this thread? He's not in the GM council.

*Everyone turns and stares at Gnote*
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1893094
I think is a pretty sound proposal all the way around, and is much more concise work than I could have done if I was copying it all from memory.

SO, council, what are your thoughts?

Keeping in mind I'd like to have this resolved today.

It sounds good to me. :up:
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1893170
I support Gnote's proposal.

I want to raise the issue regarding the SN-RF alliance. Now, should SN-RF count as a single political entity equivalent to a single party in terms of having the chance to form the government? Bear in mind that the SN-RF has acted as a single political entity almost since the start of the game and has presented a unified platform prior to the election, and now with a joint leadership and (shadow) cabinet.

I would like to hear what GM and other council members think,

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]