Ingliz wrote: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.
HoniSoit wrote: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he should remove himself entirely from the game, SN-RF, etc., everything, and the collective nature of the 'council' withdrawn.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.