Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals

This is part 1 of a two part question.

Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals? Specifically, should there be any minimum level of support?

Yes - Yes, there should be some level of support
No - No, there should be no limitations
Abstain - I don't care

Please also vote in the second poll, asking the question of if there is a minimum level of support, what should it be. Please vote in both polls!

The poll option with the most votes shall direct our course.

Link to discussion thread

-- Ravensfire

Blast - copy/paste error.

If possible, could a moderator please change the question to: Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

No.

Quite simply, the worth of an idea should be weighed by its merits, not by the amount of support is has prior to consideration. Our system is not harmed in any way by allowing any faction to submit an idea. Indeed, it is strengthened by allowing a new member to make a proposal, and convince others that the idea has merit and should be chosen.

The idea that "you must have support first!" is simply elitist.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, there must be a certain level of support before a faction can vie for government control. This is to prevent "Faction Spam," that is, silly one-person factions cluttering elections up. If a faction idea is solid, it WILL get support, I don't foresee that being a problem.

AluminumKnight said:

Yes, there must be a certain level of support before a faction can vie for government control. This is to prevent "Faction Spam," that is, silly one-person factions cluttering elections up. If a faction idea is solid, it WILL get support, I don't foresee that being a problem.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you here, Al Knight. I couldn't have stated it better than that.

Moderator:

Sorry, I voted on the wrong, it should read as "Yes" not "No". I mean there should be restriction for a Faction proposal, so at least it covers some mimimum, and to let new players know that there must a good standard for running for a government. If they never got to know what it takes, this game is going to be for the insiders only, so we need to make it explicit.

After 5 votes, it should read as 3 yes, 1 no and 1 abstain.

Moderator Action: Done - Dave (4 yes, 5 no, 1 abstain at this point)

No, as per the reasons stated by Ravensfire.

What will happen if we have one faction with enough members and all the rest fall short, but people can't switch? Then that one faction automatically wins by exclusion of the others?

Better to avoid that whole can of worms by just letting the voters figure it out, instead of an unnecessary rule.

The real can of worms is in not making sure that a faction got positions, candidates for these positions, mandates for these positions and organization of these positions. At the minimum, we need to inform the players on the importance of these, and not hope for the best. Expert rule in this game comes around by keeping secret about prerequisites that are already there. We need to get these into the open, and the best way to do this, is by having these points as a minimum. However, we can also have this in a FAQ on how to set up a good faction.

You're assuming all positions must be filled from within the faction, but there is also the coalition model where some positions are filled from other factions, or even independents, to obtain a bigger vote than that faction's membership alone.

There may be coalitions of course, I did not deny that. All I say, is that each Faction Platform must present how they want to do it, Coalition or not. There may even be a Faction Coalition proposal where 3-4 Factions go together for setting up a government. However, this will be more true to "Representation Civic", as Despotism and Hereditary Rule is another deal.

If increased role play is one of the major goals of this Demo Game, why would we want to do anything to stifle anyone's imagination? I don't think a one-person faction is all that likely to win many elections, but there are always important loyal opposition roles to be played (for film buffs think of the filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington).

Why don't we just see what the game brings us before we make too complex a ruleset? If one-person factions are perceived by the DG community to be a bad thing, any that are formed will likely die a quick death.

We got guilds to handle these solo appearances, Factions serve a role in the core rules in fulfilling a candidacy for running the gameplay-side of it, and to implement the policies people voted the faction in for. There are plenty of opportunity for roleplay, without tampering with the integrity of the election system. The imagination will not be tampered with, as the election would not be tampered with.

Provolution said:

We got guilds to handle these solo appearances, Factions serve a role in the core rules in fulfilling a candidacy for running the gameplay-side of it, and to implement the policies people voted the faction in for. There are plenty of opportunity for roleplay, without tampering with the integrity of the election system. The imagination will not be tampered with, as the election would not be tampered with.

Click to expand...

Guilds aren’t political; factions are. Let’s say at the beginning of the game I’m passionate about wanting to establish Universal Suffrage. It’s going to be thousands of game years before this is possible. Still, I want to start a faction devoted to this ideal. I do so with the hope of persuading my fellow citizens to follow a research path that will enable us to enter the blissful state of Universal Suffrage as quickly as possible. I also intend to use those thousands of years to fully develop all of the bells and whistles of my faction, including its ruleset.

Now, at the beginning of the game no one will likely want to join my factions. Why would they? It’s not going to be voted into power because there’s no possible way I can adopt my core civic, and thus there won’t be any nice political offices for members of my faction to enjoy. However, as the game progresses and the likelihood that we soon might be able to enact the Universal Suffrage civic become probable, more people may want to join my faction. What started as a faction of one – virtually by necessity – may then become a faction that many more people want to join.

I have no interest in starting a faction or in holding office. But if I did, why couldn’t I start my faction on day 1 of the Demo Game? Why must I wait thousands to years before I could do so?

You can still form an election Bertie, but you need 3 people to run for government. This means, anyone can form a faction, down to one person, but you need three people to run for government.

So far, this poll result would mean you don't need three people to run for government.

Well, the other poll has stated 3 as a minimum, so dont confuse the nature of these two polls. I do not like to feel betrayed and hijacked in this manner. There were two polls on the matter, both posted by Ravensfire, who got a clear interest in the manner. I will respect the outcome of this poll, as long as the other poll is respected as well.

Provolution said:

Well, the other poll has stated 3 as a minimum, so dont confuse the nature of these two polls. I do not like to feel betrayed and hijacked in this manner. There were two polls on the matter, both posted by Ravensfire, who got a clear interest in the manner. I will respect the outcome of this poll, as long as the other poll is respected as well.

Click to expand...

Provo, kindly read the polls again. You will clearly be able to understand the purpose of running two polls.

-- Ravensfire

This is the first two-tier poll I have seen from you in ages , Ravensfire. But you need to consider the need for some guidelines for setting up a government proposal, how do you want to go about that?

I haven't needed to set up such a poll in ages.

For your second question, see the proposal I've already posted.

-- Ravensfire