NSG Senate General Discussion Thread (Former Lobby)

[Dragomerian Islands]

Below is a preliminary equation

Proposed Election Equation for Parties: (may be placed in code later).

Code: Select all

(Campaign Spending in millions)-(.25*[number of seats owned by party if current President/PM is in Party])+(Number of members in Party)*(Random Popularity Number[1,2,3, or 4])

The seats are rewarded to those parties scoring higher than the average result per party. Seats are taken from parties that have a score lower than that average. The higher or lower your party's number is compared to the average, the more/less respective seats your party will have after the election in comparison to before that election.

Why -(.25*[number of seats owned by party if current President/PM is in Party]? Surely if president/ PM is in the party, party gains greater publicity (since media will cover event if president/PM appears rather than if leader of random party appears) which should translate to more seats...

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

[Arkolon]

Why -(.25*[number of seats owned by party if current President/PM is in Party]? Surely if president/ PM is in the party, party gains greater publicity (since media will cover event if president/PM appears rather than if leader of random party appears) which should translate to more seats...

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

No, it really depends. Were the incumbent to have governed during an economic boom, chances are their party is a plural-term executive party, for example. You can't pretend a few occurrences make law. Also, campaign spending does not affect seats by that much. We'd also need a system of checks and balances to prevent the "I'm part-time CEO of Megacorp., my party gets a donation of a billion euros" players. It's a lot of hassle.

But it could be interesting, on second thought. Parties would have to conduct fund-raisers and attract wealthy individuals, within the bounds of financial realism, of course.

[Great Nepal]

Why -(.25*[number of seats owned by party if current President/PM is in Party]? Surely if president/ PM is in the party, party gains greater publicity (since media will cover event if president/PM appears rather than if leader of random party appears) which should translate to more seats...

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

Hmm... interesting, I suppose if party is easy target for blame due to increased publicity. Fair enough I guess.

No, it really depends. Were the incumbent to have governed during an economic boom, chances are their party is a plural-term executive party, for example. You can't pretend a few occurrences make law. Also, campaign spending does not affect seats by that much. We'd also need a system of checks and balances to prevent the "I'm part-time CEO of Megacorp., my party gets a donation of a billion euros" players. It's a lot of hassle.

But it could be interesting, on second thought. Parties would have to conduct fund-raisers and attract wealthy individuals, within the bounds of financial realism, of course.

I assume we can let admins make judgement calls on what level of finances is fine and some kind of debuff if they deem finance submitted completely egregious.

[The New World Oceania]

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

No, it really depends. Were the incumbent to have governed during an economic boom, chances are their party is a plural-term executive party, for example. You can't pretend a few occurrences make law. Also, campaign spending does not affect seats by that much. We'd also need a system of checks and balances to prevent the "I'm part-time CEO of Megacorp., my party gets a donation of a billion euros" players. It's a lot of hassle.

But it could be interesting, on second thought. Parties would have to conduct fund-raisers and attract wealthy individuals, within the bounds of financial realism, of course.

Voting works fine. Many other roleplays have failed trying to implement systems of seats and control (HoC, RoW), and "financial realism" sounds like a nightmare.

[Arkolon]

No, it really depends. Were the incumbent to have governed during an economic boom, chances are their party is a plural-term executive party, for example. You can't pretend a few occurrences make law. Also, campaign spending does not affect seats by that much. We'd also need a system of checks and balances to prevent the "I'm part-time CEO of Megacorp., my party gets a donation of a billion euros" players. It's a lot of hassle.

But it could be interesting, on second thought. Parties would have to conduct fund-raisers and attract wealthy individuals, within the bounds of financial realism, of course.

Voting works fine. Many other roleplays have failed trying to implement systems of seats and control (HoC, RoW), and "financial realism" sounds like a nightmare.

My bad, I'll take back the bit about financial realism, but this voting system gives us actual change and real potential for diversity in the senate. A coalition with a supermajority easily holds the executive position for a great deal of time. It alienates the other players until eventual collapse.

[Great Nepal]

Voting works fine.

We have system where people dont vote and MP's are unaccountable... I think word for that is oligarchy.

Many other roleplays have failed trying to implement systems of seats and control (HoC, RoW),

Because they limited people's involvements in parties, this one does not. They also limited number of parties, this does not do that either.

and "financial realism" sounds like a nightmare.

Or rather simple judgement call by admins.

[Jetan]

Developed, Western nation, please. Culture and location wasn't the problem: realism limitations and political fragmentation were.

That means we'll probably be in Europe or Eastern Asia. Which is really boooring.

Much more interesting than the alternatives.

[Arkolon]

That means we'll probably be in Europe or Eastern Asia. Which is really boooring.

Much more interesting than the alternatives.

Seconded.

[Great Nepal]

Developed, Western nation, please. Culture and location wasn't the problem: realism limitations and political fragmentation were.

That means we'll probably be in Europe or Eastern Asia. Which is really boooring.

Agreed, how about we takeover land occupied by Tajikistan? It will be geographically distinct and it wont really change geopolitical events.

[Jetan]

That means we'll probably be in Europe or Eastern Asia. Which is really boooring.

Agreed, how about we takeover land occupied by Tajikistan? It will be geographically distinct and it wont really change geopolitical events.

Are you serious?

[Great Nepal]

Agreed, how about we takeover land occupied by Tajikistan? It will be geographically distinct and it wont really change geopolitical events.

Are you serious?

Or something like that yes, not an Island (preferably landlocked) and not in Europe... we have had two RP's on island country based in Europe, lets change it.

[Dragomerian Islands]

How about this: We are on a large island in the middle of the pacific with a population of 200 million people.

[Beta Test]

For some reason, I really don't like the idea of taking another country's space. I can't help but feel it's rude.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Are you serious?

Or something like that yes, not an Island (preferably landlocked) and not in Europe... we have had two RP's on island country based in Europe, lets change it.

Well Europe works so well since most people can relate fairly well, but I would support not having it on an island.

[Great Nepal]

For some reason, I really don't like the idea of taking another country's space. I can't help but feel it's rude.

What if we stretched the landmass slightly so there was space for original country and us?

[Ainin]

How about this: We are on a large island in the middle of the pacific with a population of 200 million people.

The fourth largest country in the world? How about no.

[Jetan]

Are you serious?

Or something like that yes, not an Island (preferably landlocked) and not in Europe... we have had two RP's on island country based in Europe, lets change it.

There is no point in playing barely inhabited steppe IMO. If Europe the North America, Australia/Oceania or East-Asia is my opinion.

How about this: We are on a large island in the middle of the pacific with a population of 200 million people.

How about this: No.

[Beta Test]

For some reason, I really don't like the idea of taking another country's space. I can't help but feel it's rude.

What if we stretched the landmass slightly so there was space for original country and us?

That might work better.

[Ainin]

I support a country in North Africa.

[Jetan]

I support a country in North Africa.

I oppose.

[Ainin]

I support a country in North Africa.

I oppose.

Having half-arsed terrorists everywhere and mafioso with the firepower of a standard US Army armoured cavalry brigade would only make sense in a banana republic, which would fit well in North Africa.

[Jetan]

I oppose.

Having half-arsed terrorists everywhere and mafioso with the firepower of a standard US Army armoured cavalry brigade would only make sense in a banana republic, which would fit well in North Africa.

That is indeed correct, but I think that while certain amount of wackiness is fun we should try to discourage stuff like that described above, not accommodate it.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

What about a country in the Caribbean? Natural disasters are abundant and it could be overrun with paramilitaries

[Belmaria]

How about this: We are on a large island in the middle of the pacific with a population of 200 million people.

The fourth largest country in the world? How about no.

I would support hailing from a large nation, considering the small size of the past two nations. Let's spice things up a bit.

[Beta Test]

What about a country in the Caribbean? Natural disasters are abundant and it could be overrun with paramilitaries

Indeed this idea could work as well. It would explain the inevitable violence and high crime rates.