[ingliz]

I will try and explain how it works.

The total seats are arrived at by dividing the total votes by 3. If it comes out at an even number an extra seat is added

eg. 90 divided by 3 equals 30 and so a seat would be added to make it odd (30 +1 = 31).

The extra seat is added to the total seats to guarantee that one side can make a majority if parties coalition.

The total seats are then divided amongst the parties proportionate to their % share of the total vote using the d'Hondt calculus as done in the last election.

[Donna]

We do not have enough active players to support a 50 seat parliament, never mind one with a 100 seats. The game collapsed last time it was tried.

The game collapsed because of an illegal coup on your part (at worst) or an outstanding lack of clarity on the matter of confidence votes (at best), not because we had 100 seats, 500 seats, or 1000 seats. If you understood D'Hondt, which you have abused to beguile the ignorant, you would know this. You are quite the trickster.

[ingliz]

Votes by Party:

SLD -12

PNL - 19

SN/RF - 35

THP - 14

PoP - 3

LC - 3

CA - 4

90 votes : 1 seat added


SN/RF (38.9%): 12

PNL (21.1%): 7

THP (15.6%): 5

SLD (13.3%): 4

CA (4.4%): 1

PoP (3.3%): 1

LC (3.3%): 1

Votes 90 : 31 Seats


The next party to obtain a seat would be SN/RF instead of PNL for 1 votes.

Donald:

Didn't you control 14 seats once because you could not find a "parliamentary party" from within your voter base?

[HoniSoit]

Donald - I have no idea why it is but you seem to have missed many days of discussion and deliberation.

Essentially, the decision to reduce the number of seats in parliament is to address the issue of block-vote. Namely, for most of the time it seems that a large number of voters would not even bother to come to vote on legislation let along taking part in internal party deliberation. The question then becomes what to do with their votes. Some favored block-vote by party leaders while others were opposed to it on the ground that it discourages active participation. If I remember correctly, you were very much involved at this stage of discussion. At that point, we entered a deadlock so a solution, a compromise was needed if the simulation is to survive. So Gnote, ingliz and Demo decided on reducing the number of seats so we don't need to worry too much about inactive voters - bear in mind that was the only sensible solution proposed that could move the game forward. Nobody objected to it. A new election was then called and everyone seems to be happy with it.

Now, I need to stress that it's not targeted at any particularly party, be it CA or PoP or whatever. The SN-RF now has some 30+ votes and if you take a look at our discussion thread, you will see we have far more active members than the number of seats currently allocated to us. I agree however, it is possible to revise it somewhat - so for example, rather than divide the votes by 3 we may instead divide by 2.5 (just a random example) provided all the parties actually have enough active members to take up all the MP sears.

Regarding casual players, well no one is barred to contribute to party discussion, to make suggestion and to help draft policy initiatives or responses. There are more than one way to play the game.

[Donna]

Didn't you control 14 seats once because you could not find a "parliamentary party" from within your voter base?

What does that have to do with anything? You are a trickster and it's only a matter of time before your own ilk consider you an agent provocateur.

[ingliz]

Donald:

Your party could not fill its quota of allocated seats. None of the parties could, barring the UPF, therefore after much deliberation it was decided to reduce the size of the House. You agreed to this when you voted. If you do not wish to abide by this agreement withdraw your ballot and return to the main forum. Do you really want to play the game?

[HoniSoit]

Demo - how many hours before the poll is closed?

If we are to take the time when you posted the voting thread and add 72 hours, we have about 14 hours left.

[Donna]

Your party could not fill its quota of allocated seats. None of the parties could, barring the UPF, therefore after much deliberation it was decided to reduce the size of the House.

Deliberated it may have been, it was not voted upon. I take issue with that. Anyway, it wasn't long ago that you were subverting the game because the parliament's design accommodated casual participants. You are unwilling to take the slightest amount of responsibility for the destabilization of the game you caused by staging an ill-intended coup of government, which you yourself admitted was to "test" the interim constitution. What hubris!

Go away, old man.

Donald - I have no idea why it is but you seem to have missed many days of discussion and deliberation.

Uh? You are third person to throw this word at me, deliberation. What does this mean exactly? I don't recall any sense of unanimous conclusion regarding these dictums that are supposed to be embraced gospel.

Essentially, the decision to reduce the number of seats in parliament is to address the issue of block-vote.

Why wasn't bloc voting itself voted upon individually with considerable length? A loop-hole was abused here, and that was the uproar over bloc voting.

Namely, for most of the time it seems that a large number of voters would not even bother to come to vote on legislation let along taking part in internal party deliberation.

Do you have any evidence of this phenomena? Probably not, because parliament has yet to vote on any legislation let alone a unanimously supported constitution. This is pure speculation on your part, on a whole lot of SN-RF's part, and many in the GM council, etc.

Some favored block-vote by party leaders while others were opposed to it on the ground that it discourages active participation.

Yea, but the swelling irony is that active participants in the sim are now being phased out of them game because the overwhelmingly 'active' left has no tolerance for casual participants.

If I remember correctly, you were very much involved at this stage of discussion.

I had no say in the game's designs because I'm not a "GM", as you are. As Demosthenes is (as well), who has composed most of the leg work of the council. If you ask me, he should remove himself entirely from the game, SN-RF, etc., everything, and the collective nature of the 'council' withdrawn. If he insists on the circus that dictatorial moderation presents to the rest of the game, the game's savior might as well be its grim reaper.

Now, I need to stress that it's not targeted at any particularly party, be it CA or PoP or whatever. The SN-RF now has some 30+ votes and if you take a look at our discussion thread, you will see we have far more active members than the number of seats currently allocated to us

Do you really think the present scheme, even within your own party, won't present problems once the polls close? You couldn't possibly be that innocent.

I agree however, it is possible to revise it somewhat - so for example, rather than divide the votes by 3 we may instead divide by 2.5 (just a random example) provided all the parties actually have enough active members to take up all the MP sears.

It's utterly insulting that the very participation of so many relies on the absolute decrees of a few.

Regarding casual players, well no one is barred to contribute to party discussion, to make suggestion and to help draft policy initiatives or responses. There are more than one way to play the game.

This is worth mocking! It is really laughable, because you're not only talking about casual players (personally I would prefer if they ony constituted the 'electorate') but active participants in the game who will be left with little to do but continue the last month's trend of party deliberation. This is so utterly naive that I can't believe anyone else in the ill-formed council sees it. This is disappointing, HoniSoit.

[HoniSoit]

Why wasn't bloc voting itself voted upon individually with considerable length? A loop-hole was abused here, and that was the uproar over bloc voting.

Because it would have taken far too long given at that point the game was already stalled for a week or so. It is simply impractical at that point to hold a vote on lots of the change. However, the issue of block-vote has been discussed extensively and has received broad support. You seem to be the only person taking issue with it now.

Do you have any evidence of this phenomena? Probably not, because parliament has yet to vote on any legislation let alone a unanimously supported constitution. This is pure speculation on your part, on a whole lot of SN-RF's part, and many in the GM council, etc.

I begin to suspect you are intentionally acting dumb, Donald. Of course we had evidence - the whole problem of block-vote began to emerge because of the confidence vote. You yourself are probably clearer than anyone else with the problem of PUC where you were basically the only active member for quite a while - which is why you later gave up.

Yea, but the swelling irony is that active participants in the sim are now being phased out of them game because the overwhelmingly 'active' left has no tolerance for casual participants.

If you're simply trying to allow more seats in the parliament, we can discuss it. But your assertion this is somehow the plot of left is baseless.

I had no say in the game's designs because I'm not a "GM", as you are. As Demosthenes is (as well), who has composed most of the leg work of the council. If you ask me, he should remove himself entirely from the game, SN-RF, etc., everything, and the collective nature of the 'council' withdrawn. If he insists on the circus that dictatorial moderation presents to the rest of the game, the game's savior might as well be its grim reaper.

Here you are being rather unreasonable, Donald. The whole point of GM is to help find a solution and iron out the details about how the game should proceed at a time when we were in a deadlock and we needed a small group of people working out how we should go from there which subsequently had broad support among members. Rather than appreciating the time and efforts put into this by Demo and others, you seem to suggest we were trying to run the game dictatorially when there is practically no evidence of that. All the GM did so far is to work out an interim constitution and some basic rules regarding formation of the government largely based on existing rules.

Do you really think the present scheme, even within your own party, won't present problems once the polls close? You couldn't possibly be that innocent.

It may or may not present problems depending on how many people are active in this game.

It's utterly insulting that the very participation of so many relies on the absolute decrees of a few.

Again, you're being very unreasonable. Out of practical reasons, we couldn't hold a vote on every issue we came across since it would at least take 24 hours and sometimes even 72 hours for each vote. The GM and GM council have tried to be reasonable (it's definitely not using its power at will). Demo made a separate thread asking for everyone's opinion, and then these concerns were then discussed in the GM thread. The fact is that without the GM and GM council, the simulation might have died then.

You may be in character but this is really not appreciated, Donald.

This is worth mocking! It is really laughable, because you're not only talking about casual players (personally I would prefer if they ony constituted the 'electorate') but active participants in the game who will be left with little to do but continue the last month's trend of party deliberation.

Look, the reason we reduced the number of seats is precisely because we had very few active participants. I'm sure you recognised even then. Now of course we hope every active player should be given a seat which is why I was proposing maybe instead of dividing the number of votes by 3, we divide for example by 2.5 so as to allow more seats in the parliament. If you want to discuss this, be my guest. We can work out the most appropriate number of seats.

[ingliz]

++Update++

•SN/RF (39.1%): 13

•PNL (20.7%): 6

•THP (16.3%): 5

•SLD (13.0%): 4

•CA (4.3%): 1

•PoP (3.3%): 1

•LC (3.3%): 1

Votes 92 : 31 Seats

The next party to obtain a seat would be PNL instead of SN/RF for 1 votes.

[Donna]

Because it would have taken far too long given at that point the game was already stalled for a week or so. It is simply impractical at that point to hold a vote on lots of the change. However, the issue of block-vote has been discussed extensively and has received broad support. You seem to be the only person taking issue with it now

Can you show me where holding the matter to vote was proposed, deliberated, and dismissed as 'impractical'? Or is this just a creative memory?

I begin to suspect you are intentionally acting dumb, Donald. Of course we had evidence - the whole problem of block-vote began to emerge because of the confidence vote.

No. It only emerged because the electoral results would side against the minority government that Ingliz initially announced. You're kind of forgetting that a government was illegally declared, and the question of confidence was dismissed by Ingliz's gang as having no constitutional precedence, even going so far to declare the entire interim document of the time invalid.

Here you are being rather unreasonable, Donald. The whole point of GM is to help find a solution and iron out the details about how the game should proceed at a time when we were in a deadlock and we needed a small group of people working out how we should go from there which subsequently had broad support among members. Rather than appreciating the time and efforts put into this by Demo and others, you seem to suggest we were trying to run the game dictatorially when there is practically no evidence of that. All the GM did so far is to work out an interim constitution and some basic rules regarding formation of the government largely based on existing rules.

Something like our constitution is not merely a technical function of the game, it is a document that must be ratified by parliament. The GM council was perfectly within bounds to present a document for ratification, but it did not.

I'm sure it's hard work, but what can I say? Work harder.

It may or may not present problems depending on how many people are active in this game.

I think you guys are at something like 13 allocated seats with well over thirty voters, many of whom will no doubt quickly grow bored of being sidelined to mere 'party deliberations'.

The fact is that without the GM and GM council, the simulation might have died then.

I have no problem with the existence of out-game moderation, but it crossed the line by drafting documentation that had no parliamentary approval. You can claim the very existence of the game relied on this innovation, but you have no evidence for this.

Look, the reason we reduced the number of seats is precisely because we had very few active participants. I'm sure you recognised even then. Now of course we hope every active player should be given a seat which is why I was proposing maybe instead of dividing the number of votes by 3, we divide for example by 2.5 so as to allow more seats in the parliament. If you want to discuss this, be my guest. We can work out the most appropriate number of seats.

We agree, this must be discussed. By casually phasing out active participants from sitting in parliament, you are taking a great risk that these people will simply lose interest in the sim. After all, the whole uproar with bloc-voting was because it supposedly discouraged participation. Do you see what I'm getting at, HoniSoit? This will legitimately piss people off.

Please fix it.

[ingliz]

The problem:

PNL - 13 : 2 active

CA - 7 : 2 active

SN - 14 : 12 active

RF - 8 : 6 active

SLD - 16 : 6 active

PUC - 13 (PUC-C - 8, PUC-L - 5) : 1 active

THP - 13 : 5 active

PoP - 4 : 1 active

LC - 7 : 3 active

95 seats: 38 MP's seated

and 5 seats spare due to the design of the interim document.

Almost 2/3 of the seats were empty ready to be wielded by the party leaders as a blunt instrument to stifle debate!


The new system has 31 seats, at present, with still a day to go in the ballot. This is much closer to the 'actual' number of active players and should be even closer when the polls close tomorrow.

And think on; Which Party has been the only one to significantly increase its voter base since the last election?

[Demosthenes]

I commented in the other thread so I won't address too much here. Honi speaks for the council, and I think he's being reasonable.

Just a couple things.

The game was stalled for a couple weeks at least. I'm not going to go back to re-establish a timeline, but original voting was sometime at the end of April, we had a week or two of deliberations on coalitions, then chaos until this vote.

Donald's concerns about seats is noted, I'm sure a ruling government could be persuaded to tweak the constitution as needed to ensure the voices of PoFo are heard properly, at least, I've tried my best to set things up this way.

And finally, Donald, for all your worries about this, you are still the only one voicing these concerns. When we have 85 (I'm guessing at vote totals) people not having a problem, and 1 persona having a problem, that's generally considered pretty good, and yet, even considering that as far as I can tell both the council and hopefully the upcoming government will be willing to work within the guidlines to accomodate everyone as much as they can be.

[Zyx]

I do not see why HoniSoit is suggesting changing the seat allocation to 2.5, 3 is fine.

Just run the sim as is. If there is a real problem, then it can be addressed after 'experiments.'

Right now, internal party discussion is highly encouraged and politics and what not are intrinsic in the game.

The non-MPs are not locked out and can have their own separate functions beside from communicating inter-parties [the only benefit of MPship]. There is the need for some to report on other party deliberations and there is a true reality that makes it so that not everyone who voted can participate actively in debate, drafts or voting.

--

Just make sure that every party sends their list of MPs and the MPs get acquainted with who is who and what party. Then we affirm Congress, give out ministries and let the first parliament of Pofoland begin.

The alternative, of everyone being an MP, is silly in that it means that if one is legitimately too busy to vote, debate and discuss, one's party is weakened as a result, unless [the case of bloc voting], one is not too busy, but one's party leader, nonetheless, will vote for that person and one no longer has a need to vote, debate or discuss.

Clearly, the situation decided on, with intrinsic intra/inter-party politics, is the better system for the simulation.

[HoniSoit]

I do not see why HoniSoit is suggesting changing the seat allocation to 2.5, 3 is fine.

Let's be a little more flexible about this. I'm not suggesting there is necessarily anything wrong with the current system but all depends on how many active players we have. Plus adding seats proportionately would not really change the dynamics of the game - so no need for anyone to panic. Having said that, one needs to show we indeed have many more active players than seats - not just within one party but across most if not all parties - so that we can increase the number proportionately and not end up with lots of empty seats again.

[ingliz]

The only problem is the PNL already has more seats than active members and the THP has only just enough to fulfil their allocated quota!

[HoniSoit]

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make as well.

So we still have about 12 hours to go?

[ingliz]

5 hours to go - 17:00 GMT

++Update++

•SN/RF (38.3%): 12

•PNL (20.2%): 6

•THP (18.1%): 6

•SLD (12.8%): 4

•CA (4.3%): 1

•PoP (3.2%): 1

•LC (3.2%): 1

Votes 94 :31 Seats

The next party to obtain a seat would be SN/RF instead of THP for 1 votes.

[Demosthenes]

Ingliz is correct, polls close officially in about 4 and half hours now.

I will not be on until much later however, so I won't be able to lock the voting thread.

Just note that any votes coming in after 12 noon CDT (GMT-5) are automatically disallowed.

If Dan catches all this before I do, he shall administer as he see's fit, and he may procede with any official action he wishes.

Failing that, I'll get to some of it by around 4-5 pm CDT.

Remember, according to our constitution, the largest party has 48 hours to deliberate and, folllowing official results, to put forth legislation that shall serve as a confidence vote.

All parties must submit their list of MPs prior to this 48 hour period as well. We'll start a party leader thread tonight so they can report in on who their Mps are.

[ingliz]

How things stand after Sayed and psyche's change of heart:

•SN/RF (37.2%): 12

•PNL (20.2%): 6

•THP (19.1%): 6

•SLD (12.8%): 4

•CA (4.3%): 1

•PoP (3.2%): 1

•LC (3.2%): 1

Votes 94 : 31 Seats

The next party to obtain a seat would be PNL instead of SN/RF for 2 votes.