Talk Elections

I think this fact is eluding a lot of members of this Convention. This isn't real life. The goal of this game isn't to "make peoples lives better" or "grant personal freedoms". The goal of this game is to have fun. Decisions should be made around that fact... not some sort of delusion that anything that happens here actually matters.

The spark for this was the moaning in the party thread about being forced into membership. Obviously that'd be something draconian that I wouldn't support in real life. But in this? Why not? It's a game, people! Are you really going to be personally hurt if you're forced to join an imaginary party in an imaginary game? If you are then you need a psychologist.

Let's take another game: Monopoly. When you land on a space you must pay rent. But what if I don't want to pay rent? Too friggin' bad - it's a game and that's how it works. You draw a card that says you have to go to jail. But why? I didn't do anything wrong! Too friggin' bad - it's a game and that's how it works. I want to develop houses on my property even though I don't own all of properties of that color. To not do so deprives me of my freedom! Too friggin' bad - it's a game and that's how it works.

The goal of the game structure here should not be to make people's lives better or freer or whatever other nonsense. This is a game and we should come up with game rules that make it most enjoyable.

I don't care about the right of people to choose in this game. The problem is that forced party membership damages the game aspect in a number of ways.

First, it damages recruitment efforts. Second, it confuses new members, forcing them to make an early decision too quickly. If you check now, most new members start off as undecided or independent, but end up choosing a party within a week. Third, forced membership does nothing to "advance" the game in and of itself. Fourth, it reduces the ability of new members to create their own party. It forces them to join an existing party and only then gather a movement to break out of the rigid and "strong" party structure you envision.

It's just a bad idea if what you want to do is make for a more fun, more free-flowing game.

My point is much more broad based than that single issue; that was just the particular motivation for posting this.

You're also wrong on a lot of the other points, but I'll deal with that in the other thread.

Hear, hear!

Meeker's correct.

I tend to agree.

I also think it's worth pointing out this game was founded as and should continue to be more of an elections simulator than a government simulator (though it can of course continue to be both). The current non-election part of the game isn't terribly interesting, which is why I'm proposing radical changes like introducing war.

Parties certainly need to play a bigger role in the new constitution.  So does fighting and feuds, throwing virtual shoes may be necessary.  Everything exciting in this game comes from controversey