Revival Proposal

[Dr. Cynic]

See, I don't like the idea of an RPG knocking a player's character out after they'd already established one and then forcing them to wait around to make a comeback. If I created a character, putting time and effort into that character, I wouldn't want to lose that character on someone else's whim....

I'd rather have NPC elections and then we can simulate as a government or opposition party until the next elections and let individual players decide (privately consulting with the Speaker\GM) if they want to lose and start over... I don't want it to end up like Atlasia where you're just sitting around doing nothing if you're not in office or anything...

[Platypus]

I'm far from wedded to the idea of it being Australia, I suspect I'd have more fun if it was a country I knew less about. But with so many Aussies interested, Australia does afford us a strong base start in terms of understanding the system.

Perhaps if we start with everyone being guaranteed to win their seat, but still have an election campaign, so people will be able to choose their party and seat but not know if they'll be governing or not?

I really do think having specific roles at the start is necessary though. I've been around for each reboot, and the things that kills the game are this:

1. Complexity - nobody understands the system except Xahar

2. Lack of things to do.

3. Everyone creating their own party and/or faction.

I think, to start off with, choosing an existing country and system lessens the complexity around set-up. As much fun as I have had previously with creating the constitution and the history etc., it takes up the whole start and by the time it's done, interest has waned.

I also think making sure everyone has a responsibility and they know what it is is a necessary move first up, so having 15 defined roles (possibly too many, because we need to have basically every one of them be an active and engaged person) to start us off with is probably a good thing. These roles can change over time, and others can be created or folded out, but we should aim to have the game established before too much tinkering.

To do a parliament realistically that follows the Westminster model, people can't go running around creating parties and swapping across the floor etc. Strict adherence to the party whip is necessary, I believe. In all these reboots, the thing that has done the most damage to keeping the game going is everyone creating a new party, or splintering from one, or crossing to the other side, etc.; something which very, very rarely happens in real life. We shouldn't be aiming to look like Italy.

Obviously if the idea doesn't have support, it won't go ahead, but I really do think we should aim to adopt the simple, clear, two-party westminster-inspired model of the Australian HoR, with 7 frontbenchers on each side, a speaker, and then backbenchers. Maybe there's a Green or an independent, but there shouldn't be more than one crossbencher, and they shouldn't have the balance of power unless parliament is hung.

[Dr. Cynic]

See, I think that would be a fair compromise. Everyone gets a seat, we have a campaign and then an election where we find out who is the government and who is opposition, keeping the changes between NPCs (unless a player wishes)...

I'd also support a two or three party system at least to start before we pick up more players. Obviously if a player defies a whip in the Westminster system, they are punished for it and I think this should also be the case here.

If everyone is set on Australia, I won't object to that.

[Cappuccino]

That sounds good Platypus. In order to keep things in line with a Westminster System, with strict adherence to party whips, we could just adopt the real life measures used by the ALP and Coalition if a party member defies a vote: in the ALP, expulsion from the party (and in this game's format, that'd essentially make a return to parliament at the next simulated election impossible, at least as a Labor candidate) and for the Coalition people can vote against their party but must resign from the ministry (obviously this means backbenchers can vote against their party with limited consequences).

[Del Tachi]

I just wanted to reconfirm my interest and make known that I would be a committed player of mock parliament.

I do like the way the discussion is heading, a more RPG-style game would be appreciated and there should be strict penalties for crossing the party line as there are in actual Westminster systems.   

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Australia sounds good to me. I think a two-three party system is also good to me, and when we get more players, we can always have more parties.

[afleitch]

Problem with Australia (and the UK for that matter) is that the party choices are like choosing between sh-t and sh-te I think it would be fair to adopt that Australian model but not necessarily their party system having a left of center Labour or Social Democratic party, a centre-right Conservative party and a centrist Liberal Party and a few others.

The reson why small parties and party 'blocs' are beneficial in a simulation game rather than in an election game (like Atlasia) is that if Party A defeats Party B with a majority, then all the Party A players vote yes and all the Party B players vote no because if they don't do either, they are whipped. That's essentially all that will happen; almost every piece of legislation proposed by the party in power will pass in some form.

A multi party system with voting blocs makes things more interesting (and more stable) in a government sim.

[Cappuccino]

That's very true, Afleitch. How about a three party system, with two large parties- the ALP and the Coalition- but also a slightly smaller, fictional centrist party with lax voting restrictions on their members.

And simulated elections could always be made to result in a hung parliament, where one of the ALP/Coalition has to negotiate to form a minority government, and has to convince the centrists in order to pass legislation.

[Talleyrand]

We could take Afleitch's idea of having a multi-party system into account by further differentiating the current parties of Australia (right now, as he pointed out, it's a boring two party system in which both options are not too dissimilar from each other).

Here's my proposal-
Major Parties
Australian Labor Party- Social Democracy
Liberal Party of Australia- Classical Liberalism
National Party of Australia- Conservatism
Minor Party
Australian Greens- Environmentalism
Any others

The permanent Coalition wouldn't need to exist here, as the Liberals and Nationals would be very different organizations under the system.

[Cappuccino]

Hmm, atm I think three parties, keeping it simple, would work best. How about:

Labor- Essentially the same as the real-life ALP, centre-left but with the Catholic Right Faction still prevalent. In this mock parliament typically holding around 40% of the seats (though this fluctuates around simulated elections). Strict voting restrictions where MPs are expelled from the party for not voting along party lines.

Liberal/National Coalition- Larhely socially and fiscally conservative, but influenced by the agrarian socialist policies of the Nationals, just like in real life. Again holding somewhere around 40% of seats in the mock parliament, fluctuating around election results. Strict voting restrictions by the ALP, but backbenchers are allowed to cross the floor, like in the real-life coalition.

Moderate- Fictional, obviously. Economic pragmatists, social progressives (somewhat like the Lib Dems in the UK, or the old Australian Democrats). Typically holding around 20% of mock parliament's seats. Less restricted voting for MPs.

Basically, this mean all bills require actual debate and compromise, and a minority government will always be in power. It also adds the potential for votes of no confidence in the government etc.

[Platypus]

But it also ensures the moderates basically govern.

If not two parties, then 5, two with about 30-35% support, 3 with between 10-15% support.

Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Moderates.

I still prefer two parties for the opening stages.

[Cappuccino]

But it also ensures the moderates basically govern.

If not two parties, then 5, two with about 30-35% support, 3 with between 10-15% support.

Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Moderates.

I still prefer two parties for the opening stages.

I'd be happy with that, though I'd say (if interest is high enough) start with all 5 parties.

[Dr. Cynic]

But it also ensures the moderates basically govern.

If not two parties, then 5, two with about 30-35% support, 3 with between 10-15% support.

Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Moderates.

I still prefer two parties for the opening stages.

I'd be happy with that, though I'd say (if interest is high enough) start with all 5 parties.

Moderate is a terrible name for a party though. Why not just use the generic Democrats term like the old Aussie Democrats?

[afleitch]

Seems fair. Though are we playing Australia or an Australia clone? We could have a fantasy southern hemisphere island or something that's basically Australia in everything but name.

[Dr. Cynic]

Seems fair. Though are we playing Australia or an Australia clone? We could have a fantasy southern hemisphere island or something that's basically Australia in everything but name.

Whatever anyone wants. Personally, maybe we should play as an Australia clone so we don't get too hemmed into particular aspects of Aussie politics...

[Platypus]

"Australasia", perhaps, with everything like Australia systemically, but over the two nations, and with seven parties:

PRP - Progressive Reform Party (Aus. and NZ Labo(u)r parties) 40%
ACA - Australasian Conservative Alliance (Aus. Libs, NZ Nats) 35%
AG - Australasian Greens (Aus and NZ Greens) 5%
AP - Agrarian Party (Aus Nats, also support in rural NZ) 5%
NZIP - NZ Independence Party (Centrist NZ separatists) 5%
LP - Labour Party (Populist, Australia focused, anti-immigration One Nation clone) 5%
TP - Tasmania Party (Work with anyone, vaguely left, control all Tassie seats with huge margins, kind of like PQ on steroids) 5%

But I still prefer two parties

[Cappuccino]

That seven party system actually sounds really cool, with NZ and Tassie spicing things up. As long as there are people willing to play as Tasmanian separatists, or as One Nation crazies, then that could be really good. Not sure about how many people are interested, but maybe we could start with a twenty-person parliament or something (obviously we can expand at every election sim) so we'd only need one person representing each of the minor parties. Anyway, I threw together some logos for those parties for fun:

[Platypus]

I like them, but I'd switch Agrarian to a triangle and maybe ochre-coloured, add the fifth star for Labour, and do something quite different for the Progs, maybe something like this:



...but nicer

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What would make most sense would be two parties to start with, but to allow for the possibility of party splits and new political forces, etc.

[afleitch]

Ironically I'd end up in Labor.

[Platypus]

OK, I think I've made my hidden point. The second we get too creative and detailed, people tune out.

Two parties, existing system, set roles, move on from there

[Talleyrand]

So how do we get this started then? Is there anyone willing to play Speaker (Game Moderator?

[Dr. Cynic]

I think first we should open up a register thread where we claim our parties and constituencies and character names. Then we have party leadership elections before we can actually start a parliament.

[Cappuccino]

Yeah it seems as thought it might be best to start with just two parties, but in the future I really think we should try and expand towards a multi-party system.

[Cappuccino]

So should we set up the party room threads etc?