[SUBMITTED]@@LEADER@@'s Big Unicameral Bash

[Untecna]

[Validity] Is Unicameral, is not Autocracy

[Description] A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally. Concerned that the nature of the parliament may become rather univocal, a unified front of opposition leaders has unilingually expressed their wish to see the upper house restored, in an effort to break up the apparent rise of political uniformity, and the unignorable amount of power at your fingertips.

[Option 1] "@@LEADER@@, we can no longer be silent about being silenced," declares @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the leader of the opposition, while holding hands with @@HIS_1@@ colleagues in parliament. "With this majority, you'll be able to pass any law you want, and you'll always see your projects backed by the legislature. That won't do! The upper house provided checks and balances for situations like this, and therefore we insist that you reinstate it immediately," @@HE_1@@ looks over to the voting floor dressed in your party's colours. "Because it's not like we have a shot at that anymore, heh..."

[Effect 1] The parliament has recently come out of the closet as bicameral.

[Option 2] "Actually, returning to a bicameral system is not enough," says @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the leader of the smallest opposition party, while looking over to @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Yeah, @@HE_2@@'s right, even with the upper house we'd still run the risk of @@LEADER@@'s party becoming a dominant force there," affirms @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the leader of the second-smallest party. "Good point! A tricameral system would provide even more checks and balances," nods @@RANDOMNAME_4@@, the head of the largest of the smallest parties. "Why couldn't we implement that?" all three ask in choir, looking over to you.

[Effect 2] Trios are the number one group type, both socially and politically.

[Option 3] "We did it, @@LEADER@@!" bellows your party's rather rotund campaign leader, as @@HE@@ breaks through @@RANDOMNAME_1@@'s ensemble of hand-holders. "Hahaha, the parliament is finally, rightfully ours!" @@HE@@ cheers, slapping you on the back. "Now's the time to consolidate power, and not give it away. It's time to do away with that pesky opposition, and all the other little political interlopers once and for all. We have a unicameral legislature? Let's make it a unicoloured one as well! Our party's colours, hahaha!"

[Effect 3] Old folks reminisce about when political diversity existed.

Coauthored with Daarwyrth

[Daarwyrth]

Yes, we absolutely need a reversal option for banning bicameralism. However, the issue draft that you have drafted here feels somewhat bare bones. Where's the comedy? Or satire? The speakers in the options miss any form of characterisation. Also, I think a third option of introducing tricameralism would really work as well in this particular case.

As such, I have taken the liberty to expand upon your initial draft, and came up with the following:

[Validity] Is Unicameral, is not Autocracy

[Description] A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally. Concerned that the nature of the parliament may become rather univocal, a unified front of opposition leaders has unilingually expressed their wish to see the upper house restored, in an effort to break up the apparent rise of political uniformity, and the unignorable amount of power at your fingertips.

[Option 1] "@@LEADER@@, we can no longer be silent about being silenced," declares @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the leader of the opposition, while holding hands with @@HIS_1@@ colleagues in parliament. "With this majority, you'll be able to pass any law you want, and you'll always see your projects backed by the legislature. That won't do! The upper house provided checks and balances for situations like this, and therefore we insist that you reinstate it immediately," @@HE_1@@ looks over to the voting floor dressed in your party's colours. "Because it's not like we have a shot at that anymore, heh..."

[Effect 1] the parliament has recently come out as bi

[Option 2] "Actually, returning to a bicameral system is not enough," says @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the leader of the smallest opposition party, while looking over to @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Yeah, @@HE_2@@'s right, even with the upper house we'd still run the risk of @@LEADER@@'s party becoming a dominant force there," affirms @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the leader of the second-smallest party. "Good point! A tricameral system would provide even more checks and balances," nods @@RANDOMNAME_4@@, the head of the largest of the smallest parties. "Why couldn't we implement that?" all three ask in choir, looking over to you.

[Effect 2] trios are all the rage these days

[Option 3] "We did it, @@LEADER@@!" bellows your party's rather rotund campaign leader, as @@HE@@ breaks through @@RANDOMNAME_1@@'s ensemble of hand-holders. "Hahaha, the parliament is finally, rightfully ours!" @@HE@@ cheers, slapping you on the back. "Now's the time to consolidate power, and not give it away. It's time to do away with that pesky opposition, and all the other little political interlopers once and for all. We have a unicameral legislature? Let's make it a unicoloured one as well! Our party's colours, hahaha!"

[Effect 3] power comes from uniformity

If you like my suggested draft and want to use it, we can co-author this issue If you do agree to that, the title should probably be changed to something more catchy. Maybe "@@LEADER@@'s Big Party"?

[Untecna]

Yes, we absolutely need a reversal option for banning bicameralism. However, the issue draft that you have drafted here feels somewhat bare bones. Where's the comedy? Or satire? The speakers in the options miss any form of characterisation. Also, I think a third option of introducing tricameralism would really work as well in this particular case.

As such, I have taken the liberty to expand upon your initial draft, and came up with the following:

[Validity] Is Unicameral, is not Autocracy

[Description] A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally. Concerned that the nature of the parliament may become rather univocal, a unified front of opposition leaders has unilingually expressed their wish to see the upper house restored, in an effort to break up the apparent rise of political uniformity, and the unignorable amount of power at your fingertips.

[Option 1] "@@LEADER@@, we can no longer be silent about being silenced," declares @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the leader of the opposition, while holding hands with @@HIS_1@@ colleagues in parliament. "With this majority, you'll be able to pass any law you want, and you'll always see your projects backed by the legislature. That won't do! The upper house provided checks and balances for situations like this, and therefore we insist that you reinstate it immediately," @@HE_1@@ looks over to the voting floor dressed in your party's colours. "Because it's not like we have a shot at that anymore, heh..."

[Effect 1] the parliament has recently come out as bi

[Option 2] "Actually, returning to a bicameral system is not enough," says @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the leader of the smallest opposition party, while looking over to @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Yeah, @@HE_2@@'s right, even with the upper house we'd still run the risk of @@LEADER@@'s party becoming a dominant force there," affirms @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the leader of the second-smallest party. "Good point! A tricameral system would provide even more checks and balances," nods @@RANDOMNAME_4@@, the head of the largest of the smallest parties. "Why couldn't we implement that?" all three ask in choir, looking over to you.

[Effect 2] trios are all the rage these days

[Option 3] "We did it, @@LEADER@@!" bellows your party's rather rotund campaign leader, as @@HE@@ breaks through @@RANDOMNAME_1@@'s ensemble of hand-holders. "Hahaha, the parliament is finally, rightfully ours!" @@HE@@ cheers, slapping you on the back. "Now's the time to consolidate power, and not give it away. It's time to do away with that pesky opposition, and all the other little political interlopers once and for all. We have a unicameral legislature? Let's make it a unicoloured one as well! Our party's colours, hahaha!"

[Effect 3] power comes from uniformity

If you like my suggested draft and want to use it, we can co-author this issue If you do agree to that, the title should probably be changed to something more catchy. Maybe "@@LEADER@@'s Big Party"?

Done.

[Middle Barael]

I don't think it makes sense for the last option to introduce Autocracy. If anything, it sounds like he's suggesting Direct Democracy, not autocracy.

Really the third one should be autocracy, since it is banning other political parties.

And you should probably give the choice to keep a unicameral parliament, without having to simply dismiss the issue.

[Daarwyrth]

Yes, we absolutely need a reversal option for banning bicameralism. However, the issue draft that you have drafted here feels somewhat bare bones. Where's the comedy? Or satire? The speakers in the options miss any form of characterisation. Also, I think a third option of introducing tricameralism would really work as well in this particular case.

As such, I have taken the liberty to expand upon your initial draft, and came up with the following:

[Validity] Is Unicameral, is not Autocracy

[Description] A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally. Concerned that the nature of the parliament may become rather univocal, a unified front of opposition leaders has unilingually expressed their wish to see the upper house restored, in an effort to break up the apparent rise of political uniformity, and the unignorable amount of power at your fingertips.

[Option 1] "@@LEADER@@, we can no longer be silent about being silenced," declares @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the leader of the opposition, while holding hands with @@HIS_1@@ colleagues in parliament. "With this majority, you'll be able to pass any law you want, and you'll always see your projects backed by the legislature. That won't do! The upper house provided checks and balances for situations like this, and therefore we insist that you reinstate it immediately," @@HE_1@@ looks over to the voting floor dressed in your party's colours. "Because it's not like we have a shot at that anymore, heh..."

[Effect 1] the parliament has recently come out as bi

[Option 2] "Actually, returning to a bicameral system is not enough," says @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the leader of the smallest opposition party, while looking over to @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Yeah, @@HE_2@@'s right, even with the upper house we'd still run the risk of @@LEADER@@'s party becoming a dominant force there," affirms @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, the leader of the second-smallest party. "Good point! A tricameral system would provide even more checks and balances," nods @@RANDOMNAME_4@@, the head of the largest of the smallest parties. "Why couldn't we implement that?" all three ask in choir, looking over to you.

[Effect 2] trios are all the rage these days

[Option 3] "We did it, @@LEADER@@!" bellows your party's rather rotund campaign leader, as @@HE@@ breaks through @@RANDOMNAME_1@@'s ensemble of hand-holders. "Hahaha, the parliament is finally, rightfully ours!" @@HE@@ cheers, slapping you on the back. "Now's the time to consolidate power, and not give it away. It's time to do away with that pesky opposition, and all the other little political interlopers once and for all. We have a unicameral legislature? Let's make it a unicoloured one as well! Our party's colours, hahaha!"

[Effect 3] power comes from uniformity

If you like my suggested draft and want to use it, we can co-author this issue If you do agree to that, the title should probably be changed to something more catchy. Maybe "@@LEADER@@'s Big Party"?

Done.

Glad to be working with you!

While the addition of the 4th option is nice, I wonder whether it is truly necessary. If you want to keep it in, sure, but personally, I think there's enough issues that install the Autocracy policy already my suggestion would be to keep it at 3 options (and essentially option 3 already introduces a form of Autocracy).

Oh, btw, should the title be "Unicameral Bash"? I know it doesn't read as nice as "Big Bicameral Bash", but in essence it's the unicameral system that's being "bashed".

I don't think it makes sense for the last option to introduce Autocracy. If anything, it sounds like he's suggesting Direct Democracy, not autocracy.

Really the third one should be autocracy, since it is banning other political parties.

And you should probably give the choice to keep a unicameral parliament, without having to simply dismiss the issue.

Well, an option to keep things as they are would essentially be the dismiss button. Although, perhaps there could be an option that puts limits on party size in a unicameral legislature? That would be a bit undemocratic though and defeat the purpose of promoting greater democratic checks and balances.

[Untecna]

Done.

While the addition of the 4th option is nice, I wonder whether it is truly necessary. If you want to keep it in, sure, but personally, I think there's enough issues that install the Autocracy policy already my suggestion would be to keep it at 3 options, but if you really like option 4, that's okay.

I don't think it makes sense for the last option to introduce Autocracy. If anything, it sounds like he's suggesting Direct Democracy, not autocracy.

Really the third one should be autocracy, since it is banning other political parties.

And you should probably give the choice to keep a unicameral parliament, without having to simply dismiss the issue.

Well, an option to keep things as they are would essentially be the dismiss button. Although, perhaps there could be an option that puts limits on party size in a unicameral legislature? That would be a bit undemocratic though and defeat the purpose of promoting greater democratic checks and balances.

I changed the last option to not do that. Also, the addition of the forth option was an attempt to balance out the work a little, since you came up with the revised version.

[Daarwyrth]

While the addition of the 4th option is nice, I wonder whether it is truly necessary. If you want to keep it in, sure, but personally, I think there's enough issues that install the Autocracy policy already my suggestion would be to keep it at 3 options, but if you really like option 4, that's okay.


Well, an option to keep things as they are would essentially be the dismiss button. Although, perhaps there could be an option that puts limits on party size in a unicameral legislature? That would be a bit undemocratic though and defeat the purpose of promoting greater democratic checks and balances.

I changed the last option to not do that. Also, the addition of the forth option was an attempt to balance out the work a little, since you came up with the revised version.

The core of the idea is yours, so please, don't worry about balance of work, it's no problem!

It's more that I feel that a fourth option makes the issue a bit long, while three keeps it nice and short.

[Untecna]

I changed the last option to not do that. Also, the addition of the forth option was an attempt to balance out the work a little, since you came up with the revised version.

The core of the idea is yours, so please, don't worry about balance of work, it's no problem!

It's more that I feel that a fourth option makes the issue a bit long, while three keeps it nice and short.

But it does provide for those who want to exact revenge against the parliament.

By destroying it.

[Daarwyrth]

The core of the idea is yours, so please, don't worry about balance of work, it's no problem!

It's more that I feel that a fourth option makes the issue a bit long, while three keeps it nice and short.

But it does provide for those who want to exact revenge against the parliament.

By destroying it.

Would that be necessary, though? I mean, that idea could be an issue on its own, people who have some grudge against parliament and want to destroy it. But for a reversal option for the abolishing of the upper house it feels superfluous and a bit off-topic.

[Untecna]

But it does provide for those who want to exact revenge against the parliament.

By destroying it.

Would that be necessary, though? I mean, that idea could be an issue on its own, people who have some grudge against parliament and want to destroy it. But for a reversal option for the abolishing of the upper house it feels superfluous and a bit off-topic.

Well then, excuse me while I go and make that.

[Daarwyrth]

Would that be necessary, though? I mean, that idea could be an issue on its own, people who have some grudge against parliament and want to destroy it. But for a reversal option for the abolishing of the upper house it feels superfluous and a bit off-topic.

Well then, excuse me while I go and make that.

Absolutely feel free to! I would suggest to make it a follow-up issue to a previous issue (just not sure which one), then it will work the best, I believe.

[Untecna]

Anyone else feel like giving any comments?

[Daarwyrth]

I think moving it to last call this fast is a little too fast. We have barely gathered feedback, and I feel we should leave it up for commentary and feedback at least a week or two. My suggestion would be to moving it back to [DRAFT] after the draft has had the time to gather feedback and commentary, we can see whether we can move it to [LAST CALL]

[Untecna]

I think moving it to last call this fast is a little too fast. We have barely gathered feedback, and I feel we should leave it up for commentary and feedback at least a week or two. My suggestion would be to moving it back to [DRAFT] after the draft has had the time to gather feedback and commentary, we can see whether we can move it to [LAST CALL]

I doubt there will be much. If there is none by the end of the week, it will be moved to last call. If there are none after that as well, I will submit it. Although I'd like to hear from an issue editor about this issue.

[Daarwyrth]

I think moving it to last call this fast is a little too fast. We have barely gathered feedback, and I feel we should leave it up for commentary and feedback at least a week or two. My suggestion would be to moving it back to [DRAFT] after the draft has had the time to gather feedback and commentary, we can see whether we can move it to [LAST CALL]

I doubt there will be much. If there is none by the end of the week, it will be moved to last call. If there are none after that as well, I will submit it. Although I'd like to hear from an issue editor about this issue.

If an editor has the time, they will comment on the thread, but you have to be patient. Remember that all of this is on volunteer basis, so feedback and commentary relies on the goodwill of others. In other words, patience is key in this process, and putting arbitrary deadlines on Last Calls or submissions is not the way to go about it. That way you only increase the chance that the submission will be rejected.

There is no need to rush this, this draft can easily stick around and wait for feedback and commentary for a while. Because no issue is flawless and I am confident there are several points about this draft that can be improved upon.

[Untecna]

I doubt there will be much. If there is none by the end of the week, it will be moved to last call. If there are none after that as well, I will submit it. Although I'd like to hear from an issue editor about this issue.

If an editor has the time, they will comment on the thread, but you have to be patient. Remember that all of this is on volunteer basis, so feedback and commentary relies on the goodwill of others. In other words, patience is key in this process, and putting arbitrary deadlines on Last Calls or submissions is not the way to go about it. That way you only increase the chance that the submission will be rejected.

There is no need to rush this, this draft can easily stick around and wait for feedback and commentary for a while. Because no issue is flawless and I am confident there are several points about this draft that can be improved upon.

Then I would say to suggest those points, if you know.

Thank you for the advice but maybe try to understand WHY there is a deadline. If it sits here, nothing is going to get done. And people have seemed to skip over this thread a lot without actually posting.

[Daarwyrth]

If an editor has the time, they will comment on the thread, but you have to be patient. Remember that all of this is on volunteer basis, so feedback and commentary relies on the goodwill of others. In other words, patience is key in this process, and putting arbitrary deadlines on Last Calls or submissions is not the way to go about it. That way you only increase the chance that the submission will be rejected.

There is no need to rush this, this draft can easily stick around and wait for feedback and commentary for a while. Because no issue is flawless and I am confident there are several points about this draft that can be improved upon.

Then I would say to suggest those points, if you know.

Thank you for the advice but maybe try to understand WHY there is a deadline. If it sits here, nothing is going to get done. And people have seemed to skip over this thread a lot without actually posting.

The point of feedback and commentary is to have others point out the points and issues that you yourself missed. I don't have any feedback or comments at the moment, but that doesn't mean that I'm not missing something, something someone else might point out.

As someone who has written more than one issue drafts, I guarantee you that arbitrary deadlines don't work in this process. You won't inspire people to give feedback, but rather antagonise them.

Take it from someone who has had experience on the Got Issues sub-forum that this really is a process that takes time, sometimes weeks, sometimes even months. People give feedback when they have time or when they feel like it, but when they don't give feedback that doesn't automatically mean that the draft is good to go.

I am not saying all of this in bad faith. I merely want to ensure that this issue will be submitted in its best form, and improvements can only be achieved through feedback and commentary from others

[Untecna]

Then I would say to suggest those points, if you know.

Thank you for the advice but maybe try to understand WHY there is a deadline. If it sits here, nothing is going to get done. And people have seemed to skip over this thread a lot without actually posting.

The point of feedback and commentary is to have others point out the points and issues that you yourself missed. I don't have any feedback or comments at the moment, but that doesn't mean that I'm not missing something, something someone else might point out.

As someone who has written more than one issue drafts, I guarantee you that arbitrary deadlines don't work in this process. You won't inspire people to give feedback, but rather antagonise them.

Take it from someone who has had experience on the Got Issues sub-forum that this really is a process that takes time, sometimes weeks, sometimes even months. People give feedback when they have time or when they feel like it, but when they don't give feedback that doesn't automatically mean that the draft is good to go.

I am not saying all of this in bad faith. I merely want to ensure that this issue will be submitted in its best form, and improvements can only be achieved through feedback and commentary from others

And I say what if they keep skipping the thread? Hmm?

[Daarwyrth]

The point of feedback and commentary is to have others point out the points and issues that you yourself missed. I don't have any feedback or comments at the moment, but that doesn't mean that I'm not missing something, something someone else might point out.

As someone who has written more than one issue drafts, I guarantee you that arbitrary deadlines don't work in this process. You won't inspire people to give feedback, but rather antagonise them.

Take it from someone who has had experience on the Got Issues sub-forum that this really is a process that takes time, sometimes weeks, sometimes even months. People give feedback when they have time or when they feel like it, but when they don't give feedback that doesn't automatically mean that the draft is good to go.

I am not saying all of this in bad faith. I merely want to ensure that this issue will be submitted in its best form, and improvements can only be achieved through feedback and commentary from others

And I say what if they keep skipping the thread? Hmm?

Then we wait. Really, there is no rush to submit this, the idea is here to work on, and with time feedback will come. If submission is rushed, then you will indeed miss the opportunity for feedback.

Again, take it from me that threads get feedback and comments sooner or later

[USS Monitor]

In terms of game mechanics, this would be useful.

In terms of story-telling, it's not the most exciting. I think part of why we don't already have a reversal for unicameralism is because it's hard to make it exciting.

[Daarwyrth]

In terms of game mechanics, this would be useful.

In terms of story-telling, it's not the most exciting. I think part of why we don't already have a reversal for unicameralism is because it's hard to make it exciting.

Absolutely! There’s multiple angles I tried to think of, and this seemed like the least "boring" one. But I agree that it lacks excitement. Would you have a suggestion on how to possibly add excitement? Perhaps that might inspire a thought on how to approach a reversal on unicameralism

[Australian rePublic]

Description- "A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally." Wouldn't that always happen if there isn't a hung parliament

[Daarwyrth]

Description- "A unicum has occurred, as in an unimaginable turn of events your party managed to obtain enough seats in your nation's legislature to pass laws unilaterally." Wouldn't that always happen if there isn't a hung parliament

I have yet to see a single party achieve a majority on their own, here in the Netherlands, and it's widely seen as something rather impossible here. When I look at other European countries, it's largely the same: multi-party systems where no single party holds a majority on their own, but has to achieve a majority through coalition governments.

[Trotterdam]

If it's something that's practically impossible, it shouldn't be simply asserted that it happened as part of the issue. If anything, if it's that unlikely, doesn't that mean that the problem is already dealt with, and doesn't need another solution?

[Daarwyrth]

If it's something that's practically impossible, it shouldn't be simply asserted that it happened as part of the issue. If anything, if it's that unlikely, doesn't that mean that the problem is already dealt with, and doesn't need another solution?

The solution is not for the unlikely situation, the unlikely situation was meant as a way to approach the issue of reverting unicameralism. As you may know, there has yet to be an issue idea that manages to approach the subject from an interesting and exciting manner. I thought this could have been it, but as has become clear, it isn't that which I had hoped it would be. Which is fine of course, if an issue premise doesn't work, then it doesn't work. As I am a co-author however, it's not up to me to decide to abandon this