Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals

[AluminumKnight]

ravensfire, I really admire your willingness to compromise. I would like to point out that even though a person may not be part of a faction, or cannot get enough support for his/her faction, if a faction is elected that holds elections itself (like a democracy/republic/etc.), then anyone will be able to run for office.

 

[Provolution]

ravensfire, I really admire your willingness to compromise. I would like to point out that even though a person may not be part of a faction, or cannot get enough support for his/her faction, if a faction is elected that holds elections itself (like a democracy/republic/etc.), then anyone will be able to run for office.

If that is the nature of that Factions platform for observing Representation and Universal Suffrage. But hopefully, people would like to experiment with the "darker" civics, so we do not get an argumentative goody-goody game we use to have.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

If that is the nature of that Factions platform for observing Representation and Universal Suffrage. But hopefully, people would like to experiment with the "darker" civics, so we do not get an argumentative goody-goody game we use to have.

Going from Representation to Police State for example, and taking away all the citizen rights and such because it is wartime

 

[DaveShack]

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

If it's bigger than 14 then where are they?
Just because everyone can vote in a society doesn't mean everyone does

 

[Strider]

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

He's talking about the amount of voters I think

 

[DaveShack]

If it's bigger than 14 then where are they?

They haven't joined yet because we haven't launched the game. I'm hoping that many will join.

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

I asked for the new forums to be sans usergroup.

 

[ravensfire]

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

Ultimately, however, that has to happen though. Most people aren't interested in this stuff until it affects them, then they scream bloody murder.

Yup - this was close, and won't be the last close poll that has a dramatic impact. Most close polls are on those big issues. We've got ways to change the rules, so we make a decision, move on and if it gets to be a problem, we change the rules. Yes, those situations are usually stressful and we get to see the worst of people then, but that's part of a social simulation like this.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

Really, I don't see the problem. We are to renew the core rules at regular intervals, but those hypothetical 36 got no single right until they have registered and properly joined the game PLUS we are reforming the core rules every second term or so. So basically, they need to live through at least the first term with the rules we make here. If they want a rulechange, that will take place after Term 2 elections.

 

[DaveShack]

If they want to change the core rules, they can do it at any time. If they can't do that, then this is not a democracy game.

 

[Provolution]

It is not a democracy game, it is a faction game. Anytime is not a valid argument, most societies do rule-changes at fixed intervals, at least the civilized ones. I think we should more emulate a Nation State, than a hippie collective, to be honest. Rules are there for predictability for the committed players, not just a random place people can walk in and rewrite the rules the next day. People can of course write proposals for rule changes, but changing metagame rules on a continuous basis would ruin the game for many of us.

We should respect new players views when a term has run its course and the next elections done with, not rewrite the groundrules before they have been tried at least once. There is too much work on rules already, no need to add more.

 

[dutchfire]

I asked for the new forums to be sans usergroup.

Alphawolf

Not that I disagree with this decision, I just think it might be risky.

 

[ravensfire]

It's there, and it's a risk, but that's happened just once in a long, long time. I'd rather take the risk and keep things simple for new players.

And if it happens, hopefully some people can try to tie that into the game. Could make some interesting stories and tales!

-- Ravensfire