Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Achievement
#1
Here's an existential question: how do you win this game?

You can win an election, but there tends to be one in a round if you're lucky.

Given that, how can we give players enough opportunities to actually win?

A few ideas:
1) Fixed dates for elections (at least every, say, 12-18 months IG), but elections themselves are less intense.
2) Lower key electoral events - local elections, by elections, referendums - more regularly
3) Influence system more transparent / public like the old BBS system
Steve
Acting Acting Head Av | Parliament | Prime Minister's Office | Cabinet Office | Treasury
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
I think we should defo have more electoral challenges. Maybe not more by-elections (we seem to have them at a pretty standard rate to IRL IG), but I think local elections would give a nice set up for how the state of the nation is between generals.
MP for Kensington

(In previous lives: violated a confidence and supply agreement, tried to fight a man on Eton's nine-hole golf course, released a leaflet torpedoing ones own party, was likened to an M&M shovelling money into a fireplace and co-founded Solidarity 2.0 ft. much anarchy)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
Irl there were on average about 4/5 by-elections a year between 2010 and 2015, in 2016 there were 7. I think by-elections are definitely the first place we should look when it comes to a semi-regular electoral structure especially when the Government has a smaller than usual majority.

When it comes to the second point I would have to agree here, every May we have Local Elections which can maybe be reported on and lightly campaigned about to give some feedback on a more specialised region by region basis, I think that elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly should be played out by the parties on a reduced General Election style schedule, obviously referenda only happen when the players decide they happen since they need bills and the like but the admins could run stories on referendum issues that make them more likely to be called

I think the influence system should be made very public, the sheet was nice but I'm not sure everyone was aware of it. I think a post in the party forums or in a public forum, sorted from most MPs to least, would be good.
REBECCA FLAIR

LIB DEM MP FOR MONTGOMERYSHIRE
______
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded. - Friedrich Hayek
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Milton Friedman
______

Mac the Great and Powerful
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
By-elections could be more frequent but less intense: mostly choose a candidate, do two or three campaign events and be done with it. Normally, by-elections are largely contested by the local constituency associations anyway, with very little input from the overall party. It might be a good idea to create a set of "attributes" for each potential candidate, which could be used to determine the effectiveness of their local campaign. E.g.: you could have these options:

John Doe, 34 years old, solicitor --- One Nation Tory --- Experience: 3, Organization: 7, Financial Support: 4, Oration: 5

Peter Pumpkineater, 63 years old, journalist and local councilor --- Thatcherite --- Experience: 7, Organization: 2, Financial Support: 5, Oration: 2

Jasper Parker-Growler, 71 years old, retired RAF pilot --- Monday Club --- Experience: 10, Organization: 1, Financial Support: 2, Oration: 10


Should you choose option 1, you get a very wet, very inexperienced candidate who has great campaign management and average ability to speak and get cash--you also get another ONT in the caucus should he win. Or, you can go with the third option, who is from the Monday Club (which may be a problem if you are a ONT leader) but is pretty strong with the locals, meaning he would have a higher chance of getting elected. This would give us a clear idea, while looking quickly, what the effects of their election might be and what the chances of their being elected would be.

Local elections, too, could be simulated based on a series of "decisions" which had to be made in the party HQs. The campaign could run for, say, 1 week but what it really comes down to is a scenario being posted in the HQ threads daily with a series of choices and allowing the party to make a decision. Those decisions would then be weighed against the other parties, taking in consideration the public's position on the issues, and a result would be announced. This is mostly to provide: (1) feedback on the performance of each party; (2) a good place to test new policy ideas. If you were thinking of pursuing a new route with your ideas, propose it in a local election and see how it is received across the country. Maybe it is no good and you abandon it before the big ones. Maybe it goes over swimmingly and becomes the central plank in your platform.
[Image: VO5PA6L.png]
R I C H A R D • D E • V I L L I E R S
C O N S E R V A T I V E
for
G R A N T H A M

Shadow SoS for Regions, Nations, & Devolution | Constitutional Affairs

CORNERSTONE GROUP
Reply
#5
I think we need more frequent general elections.

Local elections may gives an extra press round or so, but in the end they don't really matter enough for anyone to seriously care. With GE elections it's obviously not the case - I mean, broadly speaking the point of this game is to win a GE. I agree with the initial proposal that they should be less intense.
The Rt Hon Angela Harvey MP | Labour Party, Socialist Campaign Group

Deputy Prime Minister & Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (1992 - Incumbent)
Member of Parliament for Dover (1992 - Incumbent)

Previously: "A nobody backbencher", "Backbench Spokesperson for Everything"

Reply
Thanks given by: Richard De Villiers (CON)
#6
I think the idea of more frequent general elections would probably be a good one, provided that the elections are reduced in intensity. First, it increases opportunities for government to change hands - this is probably a good thing as the game is relatively government driven in terms of the production of legislation - and allowing the sides to switch on that would potentially prevent players from getting burnt out from having to do that all the time (particularly with Cabinets of reduced size). Second, it does create more of an aspirational goal for players in terms of moving from opposition to government. Provided the admins can balance it (which should be easy) with the understanding that the amount of time given is not enough to enact a full agenda, a twelve week election schedule could be feasible.
The Hon Lady Eleanor Grosvenor MP
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
MP for Sevenoaks | Conservative Party
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
On another polsim I play we have a calendar divided into quarters that last a week rather than months that last four days. That means that a year lasts 28 days, maybe to promote more General Elections we could turn the calendar into a quarterly thing rather than a monthly thing to speed everything up a touch?
REBECCA FLAIR

LIB DEM MP FOR MONTGOMERYSHIRE
______
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded. - Friedrich Hayek
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Milton Friedman
______

Mac the Great and Powerful
Reply
#8
I think the idea about splitting into quarters might be a worthwhile thing to consider just for game flow (or if not quarters then 2 months), maybe having a fixed schedule for live events etc that's published so we know what to expect would also be something that goes along with it. I think more frequent general elections are a double edged sword (though would be a natural consequence of going to quarters or 2 months for time flow) since they induce burnout. I can see the value in having a mini campaign for Scottish/Welsh elections and local elections just to get a sense of how we're doing since real votes > polls and all that. We also have a pretty decent rate of by-elections, but having these smaller challenges along the way would probably provide a much needed occasional change of pace for us. I do feel like the personal achievement side of it is easy to ignore and hard to really acknowledge without creating a whole bunch of extra work for people, so I'll leave that thought there for someone else to pick up on if they choose to.
Thomas Joseph Lowe | MP for Mansfield (1979-Present)

"We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values." - Tony Benn
Reply
Thanks given by: Richard De Villiers (CON)
#9
Regarding timeflow, be wary of the other side of the coin. The less time there is in a year, the more pressure there is on people to do stuff. You can easily go a quarter (or two) without a new bill. I just feel oppositions going "you haven't introduced a bill for an entire quarter" coming on. That's going to ramp up pressure on the government even further. It also means it'll be next to impossible for a government to implement its manifesto in the time given.

I think fixed general elections are probably not a very good idea. It takes away the gameplay element of a PM being able to drop the writ at any time which is essential to the British system. Similarly, simplifying by-elections does not seem to be a very good idea to me too. In practice, as I recall it when I led parties, by-elections functioned rather as general rehearsals for a general election. They are definitely the most important electoral feedback moments in the British electoral cycle, and they deserve the multi-day campaign you get. What winnable by-election didn't see lavish big-shot attention? I'm not sure, looking at media coverage of by-elections from across the Channel, that they're as low-key as some people think. Besides, smart parties research local issues. There's a big pile of statistics in the House of Commons library to help.

More elections is probably the way to go. Maybe give players more IC recognition by means of a set number of awards that can be customised to the best players each year. But as a team, and PolUK is a team game after all, there's nothing like a good election or a well-covered conference season to make it a nice competition.
the Rt Hon. Angus "Gus" Quigley MP | Conservative MP for Crosby (1992-present)
Opposition Chief Whip (2000-) and Shadow Infrastructure and Transport Secretary (2000-)
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1999-2000)

"Get Netflix at the PM's Office."
- Sybrand Buma, when asked what his first act as Prime Minister of the Netherlands would be.
Reply
Thanks given by: Richard De Villiers (CON)
#10
On RB we had 1 week = 2 months and I found that to be the best timescale. It wasn't too slow or too fast. I think by having fixed elections we remove the ability for the Government to catch the Opposition off guard. An election that can be called at anytime will keep the Opposition on their toes, as they would always need to be prepared for one being called, whereas if the Opposition knows when the election would be called they can become complacent, knowing that they have x amount of weeks to turn themselves around.

Also depending on the time period, it gives the Opposition an unfair advantage that the RL opposition never had - that they know when an election would be called, and it also removes the advantage that Governments have had (until recently) - that they can have an election when it suits them.


As nice as it is to win an election, personally, I don't think this game should be about winning as such. I think its about taking part and creating an enjoyable round for others, and having a good time while doing so.
MP For Hexham 1987 -
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
Are we still working on an elastic time scale? Time slows down or even stops for major moments such as the Throne Speech, Budget, and Party Conferences?
[Image: VO5PA6L.png]
R I C H A R D • D E • V I L L I E R S
C O N S E R V A T I V E
for
G R A N T H A M

Shadow SoS for Regions, Nations, & Devolution | Constitutional Affairs

CORNERSTONE GROUP
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)