We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beluzian Traditional Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 4123
Description[?]:
| I believe that its in our best interests as a community to remove the position of nationmaster from our game. Firstly I think it's unnecessary, and secondly because I believe the powers are being misused at the expense of fairness and enjoyment of the game by the current nationmastet, BRRP. Firstly I wanted to say that this is nothing personal. I've played with this person in Beluzia for a fairly long time, with BTP and with my old party. My experience with this user has always been positive and friendly. I would also like to add that I don't believe they're being malicious. They aren't using it to their own benefit, rather in a way that is detrimental to the game. I'll give three examples of ways the powers have been misused. Firstly, going back to my old party, there was a time I was extremely active and contributed a lot. However there was a time during real life elections here that I wasn't active for 4 days and got inactivated. I came back to find that the NM had imposed an 8 party cap, and I was effectively prevented from rejoining. I tried to reactivate a few times that week, but eventually I got frustrated and this turned me away from the game for a period of months. It's not all about me, but this is an example of how the actions of a NM can prevent an active player from playing a part in our nation. Secondly, a recent example is the early election a few days ago. This was called by BRRP without any consent or discussion from the other players. It was called to fill missing seats, I think, but when I tried to message BRRP to find this out I was ignored. The calling of an election to fill missing seats is controversial, and shouldn't be able to pass without a vote. There is also the fact that the result of the election qualitatively altered the set up of the Assembly, rendering a lot of work the BPP had done in terms of trying to form a cabinet, negotiations etc as null. This is fundamentally unfair, and is an abuse of the powers of NM. And the final issue I want to bring up is the BRRP's insistence on deleting players that have been inactive for two days regardless of previous activity. This is extremely unfair. Firstly, players often don't know that this rule is in force, and can find themselves being inactivated thinking the four day rule is in effect. Secondly, we should be promoting a tolerant and inclusive community that understands real life commitments and encourages interactivity and cooperation. I don't think this is possible with BRRP imposing the two day rule. I want it reiterated to the BRRP that this isn't personal. But I think its for the benefit of this community. I expect that you will reply in your defence, and I'm sure players will make up their own minds. The outcome of this vote should be based on number of parties and not number of seats. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:07:20, November 19, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | Honestly I'm going to stay neutral for a bit. Being away from Beluzia for a few months, I'm not in the best position to make a well backed up decision. However, I have to ask, can we try raising the complaints to the NM first before resorting to this kind of action. I feel that we should discuss and here both sides first. Also, with the 2 day rule, I think it should really only be enforced right before an election, just to insure we don't have a situation(that was pretty common) where a party takes seats and then immediately disbands. This actually resulted in a majority government once, which can be incredibly frustrating to those outside of it. However, I will side with you on that issue except in the circumstance I just outlined. I also feel that the early elections should be used in the case that a majority government forms due to a party inactivating right after an election, since it is an infuriating thing to have happen. (However, if a party legitimately wins a majority then that's a different story). |
| Date | 04:42:20, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Beluzian Traditional Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | I can understand why you'd want to stay neutral, that's totally reasonable. It's true that it's important to raise these issues with the NM. I have tried in limited ways to do so. However, I did feel like it was important to raise the issues with other players too to try and reach a consensus. I understand that it can cause issues around governments when a player goes inactive, but you could call for an early election the traditional way. |
| Date | 13:58:23, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | Firstly, the 8 party cap was just to prevent Parliament from getting too clogged up (there were 13-15 parties before). But now, I do not think it is (there are only 8 parties), so I will notify Moderation that I will remove the cap and the notification bill. Secondly, the Nationmaster has the right 'to request early elections when they judge this to be in the best interests of gameplay'. I did not call it myself, I asked Moderation to call one here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362. It also says that: 10.2.2 After judging it to be in the best interests of gameplay, the Nationmaster may request an early election in a nation where there is at least one party with seats. When making the communication, the Nationmaster should make clear they are making a Nationmaster request. Moderation reserves the discretion to query or decline the request if there appears to be a strong reason for doing so. I forgot to do this step, but as Moderation knows I'm the Nationmaster, they accepted it. And being Nationmaster, there does not need to be any consent or discussion with other players and also, the early election does not happen on the in-game month, but the month after the in-game month (ex. I request an early election from Moderation. Say that the current month is June. Early elections do not happen right away, but one month after, like all early election motions). Finally, I did not impose a two day rule. One of the Nationmaster's privileges are: 18.2.1 To request the inactivation of parties after a minimum of 2 days (48 hours) of inactivity when they judge this to be in the best interests of gameplay. And saying that players log in again and find themselves inactivated, thinking that it is because of the 4 day rule is simply false. If you go here: http://forum.particracy.net/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&author_id=9187, and click on some of these parties, many are parties without ideologies (founded to spam the nation), some parties simply went online, then didn't go only for 2 days. For example: Re: Inactive parties (not logged in for 4 days/96 hours) Nationmaster request: http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=23352 Good day to them please by stalin1953 Sat Sep 03, 2016 4:47 pm Forum: Game Moderation Topic: Inactive parties (not logged in for 4 days/96 hours) Replies: 1383 Views: 19635 This party, which is known as Knights of the People, was last online on August 31st, 2016 and haven't been online since. Would you say that that is unfair? Another example: Nationmaster request: http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=26903 Goodbye this party please This party, the Liberal Progressive Party of Beluzia, joined on August 21st 2016 and was last active on August 22, 2016 and haven't been online since. Is that unfair? So next time you try to kick me out, please look at the facts, look at Bill History, search up 'nationmaster' before criticising me for abusing my power and go to the forum and look at the Inactive parties thread before saying that inactivating parties which haven't been online for 2 days is unfair when they really haven't been online for 2 days before creating another party. Not calling you stupid, but please read and be aware. |
| Date | 14:05:38, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | So I would like to ask Parliament to reconsider voting No against this motion, as I am not abusing my power in any way for personal gains. I have only requested Moderation to call only one early election and not multiple times: http://forum.particracy.net/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&author_id=9187. I have inactivated many parties as Nationmaster which are just fooling around and many parties which seriously have not been online for 2 days. Some parties, like the Conservative Coalition of Beluzia, I did not inactivate. They inactivated themselves. And the 8 party cap was to prevent too many parties from entering Parliament and causing many troubles with Cabinet formation. After 39 in-game years of this, I am willing to remove it so that inactive parties can reactivate themselves (which they probably won't, as many are seriously out of the game). But if the number of parties entering is very extreme (which I doubt will happen), then I will put a cap again. |
| Date | 14:08:28, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | To clarify the 8 party cap, I put this on as to see whether there were any troubles with Cabinet formation. There were none in the first few years, but I decided to keep it on to see whether there would be any problems in future in-game years. There were also none, but I kept it on to see if any problems would arouse. Again, none. After 39 years of this thing, I am deciding to remove it, as I believe that future Cabinet formations will not be a problem. |
| Date | 14:30:42, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | And the Liberty Coalition voting Yes on this shows that they haven't even read the rules on the forum yet. You cannot just agree with the false statements the BTP has said (no offence, my friend) and say that I'm abusing my power, when I'm not. Have I ever called for an early election whenever I want? I became Nationmaster on 4072 in-game time. Yes, there have been many early elections. But if you go back to the dates of the Newspaper, you can see that many early election motions were passed. If you don't believe me, here is the proof: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=481905 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=482514 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=484168 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=484806 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=485222 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=485537 (this party didn't like the election result and we had another election 9 months later) http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=485916 There is no early election bill for September 4101, as I asked Moderation (through the messaging system in this game) to call one. We had elections only 2 months after normal elections (as the Socialist Working Party was not online for over 2 days already) I could go on forever, but there is proof that I did not call every single one of them |
| Date | 15:03:21, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Beluzian Traditional Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | Just to make to make it clear, I don't think you're using it for personal benefit. But a lot of the rules you quoted rely on the use of the powers being to the benefit of the game. That is where we disagree, my point is that these powers in the way they're being used are detrimental to the game. You were very close to deleting the Liberty Coalition, I don't think its fair to say they don't understand the rules just because they disagree with you |
| Date | 15:07:18, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | I was very close to deleting the Liberty Coalition was because I did not know that they had school work. |
| Date | 17:36:36, November 20, 2016 CET | From | Beluzian Traditional Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. We should be giving players as much chance as possible to be active, not deleting them because they haven't been on for 2 days. |
| Date | 00:32:05, November 21, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | The problem is some of them don't come back online even after 2 days. I've checked |
| Date | 02:10:46, November 21, 2016 CET | From | Beluzian Traditional Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | Just because some of them don't isn't an excuse to ban them after two days. It looks like you're going to win the vote, and that's fine. I'm glad we had the chance to discuss these issues at least and hopefully there is no bad feeling, I know you're only doing what you feel is best for Beluzia. |
| Date | 02:12:17, November 21, 2016 CET | From | Beluzian Traditional Party | To | Debating the ooc: vote to remove the position of nationmaster from Beluzia |
| Message | Maybe there are compromises that can be made. For example if someone is an active player or has been in the past, then that should be treated differently from a new party who hasn't even got a name. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 215 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 246 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 85 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "Society comprises two classes: those who have more food than appetite, and those who have more appetite than food." - Nicolas Chamfort |