The Senate Lobby: Fake News Lives Here

[Malgrave]

I've been throwing this idea around with ark, and I think it's a good compromise regarding this. The cap would be set at 5-6 parties, based on the traditional political groups of the European Parliament, with some slight modifications. The parties would be limited to one representing each of the following groupings: the radical left, social democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the far-right, with a potential regionalist party depending on the specifics of the incarnation.

create a discord account

[Collatis]

I've been throwing this idea around with ark, and I think it's a good compromise regarding this. The cap would be set at 5-6 parties, based on the traditional political groups of the European Parliament, with some slight modifications. The parties would be limited to one representing each of the following groupings: the radical left, social democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the far-right, with a potential regionalist party depending on the specifics of the incarnation.

create a discord account

get on irc now

[Garner Industrial State]

create a discord account

get on irc now

How do I join?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

get on irc now

How do I join?

Create an IRCCloud account and join this channel: https://www.irccloud.com/irc/espernet/c ... nsg_senate

[MERIZoC]

I've been throwing this idea around with ark, and I think it's a good compromise regarding this. The cap would be set at 5-6 parties, based on the traditional political groups of the European Parliament, with some slight modifications. The parties would be limited to one representing each of the following groupings: the radical left, social democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the far-right, with a potential regionalist party depending on the specifics of the incarnation.

create a discord account

MODS

[MERIZoC]

Even if we take Calaverde, six active parties is pretty unachievable - the only active parties were the Lib Dems and the New Dems with the Dem Left having enough people to fill leadership spots and not much else and the Free Dems being supported by voting bots.

[Arkolon]

I would suggest a temporary limit instead of a permanent one. We’d thus begin with two semi-big tent parties; one would be vaguely right-wing, whilst the other, of course, would be vaguely left-wing. Secessions would be expected after some time, since catch-all organisations are prone to indecisiveness and internal quarrels; but the resulting parties, being collective efforts rather than individual fancies, would presumably be more active. A strictly two-party system would only do away with our coalitions and confidence and supply agreements, rendering everything a bit dull, especially if caucuses are suppressed or otherwise policed.

Why would it be dull? Internal politics would become a massive part of the game, with policy amendments and leadership elections taking centre stage, all the while making elections and votes by nature close by pitting two huge parties against each other in the Chamber. Whereas before (and as you suggest) you could create a new party because of a single disagreement with the parent party – eg the death penalty, or tax policy, or anything like that – where you could assume the leadership and have a handful of players below you, being in one of two parties means you can't cop out like that: if you want your ideas heard you must push for them, you must compromise, and you must deceive and collude in order to weaken the leadership and make it bend your (or your faction's) way. What's dull is having tiny parties that have no reason to exist on their own withering away as they notice their irrelevance and then refuse to participate, and having major coalitions become immovable and basically the playthings of their leaderships. I'm tired of seeing that happen, over and over again, because that's what's dull.

[Improved werpland]

What if instead we just incentivized people to join larger parties by apportioning some currency to parties based on their membership? This currency could be spent as campaigning funds during a scorinator-type election for the presidency or something like that. Imagine Ryterrbus but with a purpose.

[Collatis]

What if instead we just incentivized people to join larger parties by apportioning some currency to parties based on their membership? This currency could be spent as campaigning funds during a scorinator-type election for the presidency or something like that. Imagine Ryterrbus but with a purpose.

This might be a solution, but it's not a solution I like. I can imagine few things I'd hate more than having to handle campaign funds.

[Ainin]

I support the idea of a scorinated election in principle but campaign funding is a hamfisted way to do it. An RP bonus along the lines of NS Sport would be fairer and promote activity in a broader fashion, since it wouldn't tie activity to specifically money-related posts.

[The Sarian]

I also believe we should do a scorinated election, move emphasis away from voting bots and onto activity.

[Kamchastkia]

This debate over the the establishment of a bipartisan system is interesting and all, but it'd be COOLER ON DISCORD (click to join)

[Garner Industrial State]

How do I join?

Create an IRCCloud account and join this channel: https://www.irccloud.com/irc/espernet/c ... nsg_senate

No, the actual RP.

[Arkolon]

What if instead we just incentivized people to join larger parties by apportioning some currency to parties based on their membership? This currency could be spent as campaigning funds during a scorinator-type election for the presidency or something like that. Imagine Ryterrbus but with a purpose.

While this is a very interesting idea that I could be open to supporting, a campaign-fund idea ultimately serves no other purpose than to disconnect the head of state from the head of government. Larger parties effectively gaining a larger share of the vote in presidential elections can grant them the office, but so long as every player gets a single vote the situation in the Chamber is unchanged. One way around it is to give players of different parties a larger individual vote based on the size of their party, but this is impractical, unrealistic and just makes getting vote-bots even more important (and they can stay dormant, too!).

What I want out of this iteration is exactly what Sarian said: activity, not a quest for more vote-bots. While I personally think the root of most of the Senate's evils is its free-for-all multipartism, I think this discussion we are having about how to give the Senate more depth and less breadth is very healthy in itself.

[House of Judah]

Create an IRCCloud account and join this channel: https://www.irccloud.com/irc/espernet/c ... nsg_senate

No, the actual RP.

Watch this space for the reboot to commence in earnest and you will be able to get in on it. There will be an application thread and everything.

[Improved werpland]

What if instead we just incentivized people to join larger parties by apportioning some currency to parties based on their membership? This currency could be spent as campaigning funds during a scorinator-type election for the presidency or something like that. Imagine Ryterrbus but with a purpose.

While this is a very interesting idea that I could be open to supporting, a campaign-fund idea ultimately serves no other purpose than to disconnect the head of state from the head of government. Larger parties effectively gaining a larger share of the vote in presidential elections can grant them the office, but so long as every player gets a single vote the situation in the Chamber is unchanged. One way around it is to give players of different parties a larger individual vote based on the size of their party, but this is impractical, unrealistic and just makes getting vote-bots even more important (and they can stay dormant, too!).

What I want out of this iteration is exactly what Sarian said: activity, not a quest for more vote-bots. While I personally think the root of most of the Senate's evils is its free-for-all multipartism, I think this discussion we are having about how to give the Senate more depth and less breadth is very healthy in itself.

Free-for-all multipartism is what makes the senate fun. I would not enjoy being on the same side as fascists or communists. The fun is in struggling for your political creed's success and against the people you feel salty towards, many of whom can may fall on the same side of the broad left and right wings.

I don't really understand your criticism. The scorinator election would not involve Senate members voting and the very purpose (at least in my view) would be to give an opposition coalition the chance to snatch the presidency away from the government. You've got a point on party members being a bad criteria for currency apportioning, but I think we can find a way around that. What if currency was awarded according to the number of (successful) bills authored by party members?

[Arkolon]

While this is a very interesting idea that I could be open to supporting, a campaign-fund idea ultimately serves no other purpose than to disconnect the head of state from the head of government. Larger parties effectively gaining a larger share of the vote in presidential elections can grant them the office, but so long as every player gets a single vote the situation in the Chamber is unchanged. One way around it is to give players of different parties a larger individual vote based on the size of their party, but this is impractical, unrealistic and just makes getting vote-bots even more important (and they can stay dormant, too!).

What I want out of this iteration is exactly what Sarian said: activity, not a quest for more vote-bots. While I personally think the root of most of the Senate's evils is its free-for-all multipartism, I think this discussion we are having about how to give the Senate more depth and less breadth is very healthy in itself.

Free-for-all multipartism is what makes the senate fun. I would not enjoy being on the same side as fascists or communists. The fun is in struggling for your political creed's success and against the people you feel salty towards, many of whom can may fall on the same side of the broad left and right wings.

I don't really understand your criticism. The scorinator election would not involve Senate members voting and the very purpose (at least in my view) would be to give an opposition coalition the chance to snatch the presidency away from the government. You've got a point on party members being a bad criteria for currency apportioning, but I think we can find a way around that. What if currency was awarded according to the number of (successful) bills authored by party members?

Free-for-all multipartism isn't what's fun in itself: the Senate is a battle between ideas superimposed over a numbers game, and what's fun is the battle between ideas. Although at first glance free-for-all multipartism appears to be the most obvious way to conduct ideological warfare, it in fact sacrifices it and turns the Senate into even more of a numbers game. If we forced ideological combat in the Senate – by pitting players against each other in the same party rather than allowing them to create ideological safe spaces independent from other players. We need to find a way to turn the Senate into less of a numbers game and more of a battle of ideas roleplay. This could be done by capping the number of parties, but it does make it awkward for communists, fascists and other minor fringes, you are right. That is why a discussion about alternatives is what we need to have in this thread. Perhaps one alternative is to enforce the 10-members-for-a-party rule more strongly, by only allowing parties to be created if they have over 10 members – but this is impossible to police effectively without some kind of mod/admin power. I still think a crude cap is best, but again we need a general discussion more importantly.

The presidential figure has always been ceremonial and redundant in NSGS, and whether it goes to a large party or a small one is a superficial fix that does nothing to change the underlying architecture of the numbers game. Large coalitions of entrenched and autonomous mini-parties will still dominate the Senate and form governments; it is their bills that will be passed, and smaller parties' only shot at relevance is stirring up a fight in the Chamber or spending a lot of time and resources to try and win the Presidency, which has no functional value in the Senate anyway. That is my criticism, that it doesn't do enough.

[Kamchastkia]

can we set a timeline or are we gonna stay in the planning phase a couple more months.

[The Liberated Territories]

I'd say launching by February is a good idea.

[Improved werpland]

Free-for-all multipartism is what makes the senate fun. I would not enjoy being on the same side as fascists or communists. The fun is in struggling for your political creed's success and against the people you feel salty towards, many of whom can may fall on the same side of the broad left and right wings.

I don't really understand your criticism. The scorinator election would not involve Senate members voting and the very purpose (at least in my view) would be to give an opposition coalition the chance to snatch the presidency away from the government. You've got a point on party members being a bad criteria for currency apportioning, but I think we can find a way around that. What if currency was awarded according to the number of (successful) bills authored by party members?

Free-for-all multipartism isn't what's fun in itself: the Senate is a battle between ideas superimposed over a numbers game, and what's fun is the battle between ideas. Although at first glance free-for-all multipartism appears to be the most obvious way to conduct ideological warfare, it in fact sacrifices it and turns the Senate into even more of a numbers game. If we forced ideological combat in the Senate – by pitting players against each other in the same party rather than allowing them to create ideological safe spaces independent from other players. We need to find a way to turn the Senate into less of a numbers game and more of a battle of ideas roleplay. This could be done by capping the number of parties, but it does make it awkward for communists, fascists and other minor fringes, you are right. That is why a discussion about alternatives is what we need to have in this thread. Perhaps one alternative is to enforce the 10-members-for-a-party rule more strongly, by only allowing parties to be created if they have over 10 members – but this is impossible to police effectively without some kind of mod/admin power. I still think a crude cap is best, but again we need a general discussion more importantly.

The presidential figure has always been ceremonial and redundant in NSGS, and whether it goes to a large party or a small one is a superficial fix that does nothing to change the underlying architecture of the numbers game. Large coalitions of entrenched and autonomous mini-parties will still dominate the Senate and form governments; it is their bills that will be passed, and smaller parties' only shot at relevance is stirring up a fight in the Chamber or spending a lot of time and resources to try and win the Presidency, which has no functional value in the Senate anyway. That is my criticism, that it doesn't do enough.

A more strict enforcement of this 10 member rule (which I don't remember hearing about until now) seems like a better solution than capping it at two or three parties, in my opinion. If people want to argue with other players they can go to NSG. NSGS/The Senate/Whatever This is Now is not mainly about debate as long as I recall.

We could consider giving the president veto power. Anyhow I never thought presidential elections on their own would solve the problem, although I've always thought it was a good idea regardless. In this case I said we could consider presidential elections (and campaign funds more specifically) as a way to incentivize people to join larger parties.

[The Liberated Territories]

I would be fine with a stricter 10 member rule tbh

We could also play around with different voting systems and see what works best for the Senate.

[MERIZoC]

I fear enforcing that rule will lead to larger numbers of people signing up as independents, further reducing activity because nobody whips them. An idea I've been floating around for a while is that we don't allow people to become independents. They either sign up with a party or make their own. A huge problem we've had in the past is like 30% of the people who sign up just put independent on their app, presumably cause they dont know what party they want to be in, and then they forget all about it and never do anything cause nobody whips them. Banning that would send more people into the existing parties and boost the actual player base. As such;

Resolved: Senators may not be "independent". Each player must be a member of at least one political party.

[Arkolon]

I fear enforcing that rule will lead to larger numbers of people signing up as independents, further reducing activity because nobody whips them. An idea I've been floating around for a while is that we don't allow people to become independents. They either sign up with a party or make their own. A huge problem we've had in the past is like 30% of the people who sign up just put independent on their app, presumably cause they dont know what party they want to be in, and then they forget all about it and never do anything cause nobody whips them. Banning that would send more people into the existing parties and boost the actual player base. As such;

Resolved: Senators may not be "independent". Each player must be a member of at least one political party.

New players that join the Senate independently (not recruited) are generally very keen on playing the role of the maverick and have their own ideas for a special kind of Senator and so deliberately avoid looking at other parties already existing in the Senate because they wouldn't join one even if they would fit in them. This rule will just increase the number of one-member parties in the Senate and will wither away anyway. Without another rule incentivising new players to join already-existing, larger parties – either by capping the number of parties, enforcing the 10 members rule more strictly, or something like that – this resolution will not make a noticeable difference to the Senate.

I am interested in werp's idea to give the President veto power, especially if the President can freely use their veto as often as possible. This will need scorinated Presidential elections to be of any use in the Senate, but I am unsure if gridlock makes the Senate more or less interesting. In any case, this would still not incentivise players to join larger parties (unless larger parties get a bonus just due to size, ie not because they have more people RPing so more score in the scorinator), and a different resolution would be needed to make sure the number of parties stays relatively small and membership of individual parties relatively large.

[Paketo]

I think 10 might be a bit high of a limit. Since, from what I remember, each party usually has five executive positions (Party Chair, Vice party chair, Chief Whip, Senate leader, and vice Senate leader), it might be better to set membership at 7-8 where they can fill the hierarchy and a few base members.

[Collatis]

The entire idea of a membership requirement is ridiculous and will solve no problems. Why should a group of 6 active people not be able to form a party, but a group of 3 active and 7 inactive people shouldn't? And if you're thinking of adding a requirement for activity, I can't think of any way in which that could be fairly or effectively enforced.

I am in favor of introducing an executive veto and a partial scorinator in the form of an RP bonus. However, that bonus should only be an added factor to the raw votes.