So. What is this all about?

[afleitch]

I don't mean to be a big puffy rain cloud, and I signed up to this in the first week, but what actually isthis? I am genuinely confused as to what this is supposed to be.

Is this an election sim with a small number of participants? If it is, and you're outside of parliament, what are you to do with your time here? Atlasia was an election sim with about a million posts you could run for or be nominated into. Which was a good thing, in it's way. A game with one single body and a smaller number of people signed onto it might elicit boredom after a very short while

Is this a parliament sim? If it is, you already have your political makeup in registered voters without the need for formal elections (makeup shifts as parties shift, people leave, people join etc) You can have a game that's a giant parliament and actually is more challenging because you have a high number of participants to get to vote a certain way. Anyone not playing in parliament can essentially be part of the government in other ways, or a civil service.

I'm confused as to what the goal is. I had assumed it was to be a parliament sim so my apologies if it's moved in another way through consensus.

[Yelnoc]

Just going to bump this. It looks neat, but I have no idea what's going on.

[Foucaulf]

I'll budge into here again, I think:

Is this an election sim with a small number of participants?

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but with two differences. The first is that roleplaying is not necessary and may even be discouraged (and this is a huge one). The second is that the game isn't railroaded by a mod team.

The goal of the game, if there is one, is to promote your agenda and maneuver to power. The elections are merely a mechanism for a player to be stripped of his power if former allies disagree. I, as the GM, exists to give information so people know what their agenda entails in practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think everyone came to a consensus on deciding we're not a universal parliament, but that was the idea among people I talked to. I don't think the game would be more challenging that way, simply because there will be zombie players. The Parliament itself should be a cluster of active schemers, if that makes sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given this game is a reaction to Atlasia, a conscious decision was made to strip formal offices to as few as possible. Let the most committed players lead the narrative and other people step in and blabber about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did just make up that goal definition right now, so feedback is appreciated.

[Donerail]

While there are fewer offices than Atlasia, my understanding is that both the smaller size of the simulation combined with the potential for more non-governmental offices (not just newspapers, but pressure groups and party leadership opportunities) should make up for that.

[afleitch]

Thanks for the explanation

The problem I have is that it was decided what the game would be, based on a provisional parliament made up of x number of players based solely on the order in which they joined. So they essentially got to decide what the game was going to be. It’s not surprising that an exclusive group ended up designing an exclusive parliament! I don’t mean you’ve done a ‘bad job’, quite the contrary but you can see why it might raise a few eyebrows.

You said that the ‘parliament should be a cluster of active schemers.’ I don’t disagree, but what makes you think those that have signed on here aren’t active schemers? Why else would they have signed up?

So as I mentioned before; you’ve stripped the game of most offices. You’ve established it so that ‘the most committed players lead the narrative’. What is everyone else supposed to do if you’ve left them nothing to do?

If you’ve left them nothing to do, and as Sjoyce says hope that there will be newspapers, pressure groups then you’ll find everyone else essentially ‘rabble rousing’ and doing nothing else. Those in the parliament can essentially ignore that, as there’s no established mechanism for what everyone else does impacting on the parliament. You’re re-creating a situation like Atlasia where a huge proportion of participants are outside of the game. Yet unlike Atlasia there’s not really much else for them to do as of yet. If you’re running a parliament sim and not a government/elections sim, I think you need to be a lot broader than that.

I think you already have all your parliamentarians already. Parliaments are supposed to have lazy bastards as well as active schemers. It makes sense at least to start out, in having a universal parliament. Then you can cut it back if it grows too large and once everyone gets used to it.

[Leinad]

Very interesting thoughts. I think that these types of tricky, existential conversations are ones we need to have to figure out exactly what we want to be.

The problem I have is that it was decided what the game would be, based on a provisional parliament made up of x number of players based solely on the order in which they joined. So they essentially got to decide what the game was going to be. It’s not surprising that an exclusive group ended up designing an exclusive parliament! I don’t mean you’ve done a ‘bad job’, quite the contrary but you can see why it might raise a few eyebrows.

Well, how else do we decide basic things like where the game is, and how we hold the first election? I think it could've been done better (i.e. actually look at other ideas instead of taking South America as the first interesting one and dismissing all others as a waste of time to talk about), but overall I think it was the best format to start us off.

I'm not sure why you connect a limited parliament choosing to have a limited parliament replace it--both of those decisions make sense on their own.

You said that the ‘parliament should be a cluster of active schemers.’ I don’t disagree, but what makes you think those that have signed on here aren’t active schemers? Why else would they have signed up?

Counter-point: Atlasia has, what, over 100 people signed up, but not even half of them are active. Now, you could say that has to do with structural errors regarding Atlasia--and maybe that's partially true, maybe a higher percentage will be active in Sudamerica South America, but some of them will most likely be quite inactive.

Another counter point: stability. There's something to be said for having control over the exact number of MPs, although I will concede that my first counter-point is better.

I think you already have all your parliamentarians already. Parliaments are supposed to have lazy bastards as well as active schemers. It makes sense at least to start out, in having a universal parliament. Then you can cut it back if it grows too large and once everyone gets used to it.

Likewise, wouldn't it make sense to start out with a limited parliament, and then change things up if necessary?

Besides, I'm sorry to say that you're a little late with these suggestions. For better or worse, the Provisional Parliament has been entrusted with the mandate of a loose informal consensus, and they've made their decisions. Now, I'm not happy with all of the decisions, but outside of the location "vote" I think we've had fair, legitimate, democratic votes--even if some MPPs were resistant towards taking them.

We can change stuff later, but for now I think it's time to see how the current format serves us.

[afleitch]

It's worth noting that there's a party list system of elections where each person get's one vote. Assuming people will vote for their own parties, the political makeup of the parliament will end up reflecting the political makeup of registered voters who turnout to vote. So therefore, what's the point of having the elections

[Oakvale]

It's worth noting that there's a party list system of elections where each person get's one vote. Assuming people will vote for their own parties, the political makeup of the parliament will end up reflecting the political makeup of registered voters who turnout to vote. So therefore, what's the point of having the elections

There's plenty of unaffiliated voters.

[Barnes]

It's worth noting that there's a party list system of elections where each person get's one vote. Assuming people will vote for their own parties, the political makeup of the parliament will end up reflecting the political makeup of registered voters who turnout to vote. So therefore, what's the point of having the elections

There's plenty of unaffiliated voters.

Correct.  One of the advantages of this game so far is that parties are totally private organizations and that anyone wishing to register has no pressure to join a party.  In my mind, party members should be the most active players who want to jostle for seats in Parliament, etc.

[Lincoln Republican]

But for those who do not win a seat in parliament, what are they supposed to do, sit around in the visitors gallery and watch the debate?

Yup, sounds fun to me.

And why did the framers of this sim pick South America?  We all know the U.S. in depth, but I would venture to say few participants have much of a knowledge of South America, other than it is that big continent down south, and has a history of two bit dictators.

[Barnes]

But for those who do not win a seat in parliament, what are they supposed to do, sit around in the visitors gallery and watch the debate?

Yup, sounds fun to me.

And why did the framers of this sim pick South America?  We all know the U.S. in depth, but I would venture to say few participants have much of a knowledge of South America, other than it is that big continent down south, and has a history of two bit dictators.

Because it's more fun to play something new; there's already an American sim called Atlasia; and this method has many more opportunities. What I mean by the last point is that, unlike Atlasia, South America actually has to reconstruct its entire economy and social services. There is no carryover of past legislation. This country is facing a myriad of complex economic factors that should be fascinating to attempt to address.

[Oakvale]

But for those who do not win a seat in parliament, what are they supposed to do, sit around in the visitors gallery and watch the debate?

Yup, sounds fun to me.

And why did the framers of this sim pick South America?  We all know the U.S. in depth, but I would venture to say few participants have much of a knowledge of South America, other than it is that big continent down south, and has a history of two bit dictators.

As Barnes said, we already have a US election sim. It's not in very good shape, but if you want to try introduce a parliamentary system there you should go ahead.

I don't understand your first complaint - how is that a problem? We're not going to add meaningless and low-activity regional governments. All they do in Atlasia is act as a boring stepping stone to higher office. Start a newspaper. Yell abuse from the gallery. Do some analysis. Become a lawyer once we've set up the courts. Try to get into Parliament next time.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, thank you both for your answers.

I agree that with this format and location you are free to start a new country with new legislation and new policies, unencumbered at all by the past.

But with a mock parliament about the U.S., you would as well have been perfectly free to start from scratch.  Mock parliament is a separate entity from Atlasia as far as I'm concerned, and one need not have any impact whatsoever on the other.

But yes, a nation of South America is a new venture I agree, and yes, it does hold the prospect of being an interesting game that can be fun for participants.

But I  think we all agree that the center of action and where all the decisions are made will be in parliament.  And not everyone who wants to be will be elected to parliament.

But such is the case I suppose in any sim that has democratic elections, in fact IRL as well.

[afleitch]

We're not going to add meaningless and low-activity regional governments. All they do in Atlasia is act as a boring stepping stone to higher office. Start a newspaper. Yell abuse from the gallery. Do some analysis. Become a lawyer once we've set up the courts. Try to get into Parliament next time.

I think the point is, no one has defined what everyone else is supposed to do. We have a Mock Parliament. So, if you leave everyone not in it do other things, then they really can do what on earth they want. It's South America. They could stage a coup.

Obviously, that's not what people want, but it does leave a significant number of people with not much to do.

Why wasn't interest in this game enough to confirm that those who signed up were pretty keen on actually playing a parliamentary sim, rather than 'a rest of the country' sim, which is what Atlasia essentially is.

[Simfan34]

I'm still a fan of playing a Anglophone Patagonia.

[afleitch]

So.

What do those not in parliament do now? You've adopted a constitution without consultation which might have kept people busy and there's no other established bodies that parliament is constitutionally obliged to listen to (press, unions etc) So what are we to do?

[Barnes]

My dear chap, real life Parliaments do not have to pay any heed to unions or to the press!  Now, they do that at their own peril, just as our Parliament would.

The Game Moderator is tasked with dealing with the organizations and including them in the news and activities of the day.  There are plenty of things to do around here that can both upset and impede the government's agenda within the broader context of South America.