Office of GM Foucaulf - POLICY AGENDA POSTED

[Foucaulf]

Citizens of [Future Country name here]/i]

My name is Foucaulf, the Game Moderator serving the Provisional Parliament.

Let's cut to the chase: This is a new game, and I want your ideas. While the Provisional Parliament gets used to the rules of order and make legislation, I'll be worldbuilding and setting up how our nation looks like. I will also figure out the GM's relation to Parliament and ways I can communicate with Parliament and Cabinet.

I welcome all of your suggestions. Got country names, maps or how our country should start out as? Post them here and let me know. I think we are simulating a nation comprising the continental United States, so we could aim for a country starting off with U.S. - like policies.

I will try to update the thread regularly, probably daily. Thanks.

[Foucaulf]

I may as well put some of my thoughts on the table.

Role of the GM. The GM exists to keep players on their feet. Ideally, cabinet is the group that is banging out legislation and directing the agenda. The GM is there to get parliament thinking about issues outside of the agenda.

I personally don't want to build the role around spitting out statistics and conjecturing elaborate storylines; doing that either bores everyone or pisses everyone off. My idea is to moderate "Model UN style": every week or so, build a dossier that explains a neglected issue or a consequence of legislation I  thought was not emphasized in debate very well. Then parliamentarians are somewhat informed to act upon the event.

Obviously I won't stand idly by if Parliament votes to install a Soviet dictatorship, but the hope is that we won't be bored enough to entertain such things.

Relation to Parliament. Parliamentary supremacy rules, and I have power insofar as parliamentary statute keeps this position going. I definitely think Parliament should have some oversight over me. There are two questions:
- Does the GM have a fixed term, at which point parliament must vote to reelect him?
- Can parliament support a motion of no confidence in the GM and make him resign?

Location. I still want to start up the scenario in a more dystopian version of America, but location is something Parliament should decide. I just don't want to see a totally fictitious location - roleplaying isn't the goal here yet.

Here's also what I said in another thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As acting GM I should try to answer these questions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is an artifact of when we had conversations about mock parliament on IRC: usually evenings in the US. There's a tradeoff here: do we stick with an American political system so new players can jump in faster, or do we move to a different country? The focus may have been more to the former, since we really thought of this as an alternative to Atlasia.

I'm assuming we're starting with a historical US scenario, but parliamentary supremacy rules. I don't see why parliament can't just order a GM to write a new scenario if the need arises.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what I thought. I'm taking requests for policy research over in the other thread!

We can delve into the intricacies of this, but getting used to parliamentary supremacy means getting used to there being no giant hurdle to establish rights or lack thereof. If we're successful certain rights will be set as precedent, and keeping track of said precedent will probably be the judges' main duty.
[/quote]

[Foucaulf]

Location. I still want to start up the scenario in a more dystopian version of America, but location is something Parliament should decide. I just don't want to see a totally fictitious location - roleplaying isn't the goal here yet.

so like america a couple years after overthrowing a fascist regime, for example?

That goes quite farther than what I was thinking, but I like it.

Here's a rough sketch: a world where ModParl America is a waning power alongside a rising China and and resurgent Russia. Let's say that an authoritarian U.S. shot itself in the foot, diverting a large portion of its best and brightest across the world. Many travelled to South America or other Commonwealth countries. As said authoritarian U.S. became isolationist, Russia buttered up with Europe and Japan/Taiwan/Korea became economically integrated with China. On the foreign policy front at least ModParl America needs to reconcile with its old allies, while battling for control in a roughly rectangular area spanning the Western Sahara to Indonesia and the Philippines.

Maybe someone can sponsor my full setup as a motion in the provisional parliament and see if it passes, as an additional exercise in understanding parliamentary procedure.



Also noted what Bore posted. I think election simulations will get complex and impenetrable very quickly, and I'm optimistic that a closed PR list biased toward small parties will bring balance (i.e. Sainte-Lague highest averages)

[Foucaulf]

Responding to the electoral sim suggestion here: I don't like a sim for the same reasons economists like markets these days. Any sim ran by a few people won't be taking into account all the information in the game. We're definitely heading towards more a government game than an elections one, but I don't have confidence that any rules governing a simulation would reflect what the players want out of a game. Eventually it'll be both unfair and ridiculous.

We're going to have zombie voters at this rate (if we're going full FPTP zombies are a necessity). Maybe Parliament can vote for term limits if things really start going the Atlasia way?

New parliamentarians should also know that a dual system is possible, maybe one where 10 seats are FPTP and another 10 are closed list PR. We could also do MMP, but that system is subtler than it looks.

How about AMS like in the Scottish Parliament? You get the benefit of constituencies plus pretty much full proportionality?

AMS is MMP except with a hard cap on the number of PR seats allotted. In that sense, it is less proportional than MMP. Let's say that in an election in our game a left-wing party sweeps 11/12 of the FPTP seats but gains 50% of the vote on the party list. In that case, we would need to have a 22-member parliament, such that 11/22 = 50%.

Maybe it would be fun to try MMP at first, since I doubt any party will have such perfect vote efficiency. The only worry is that we run out of candidates running in an attempt to maintain proportionality.

[Foucaulf]

I'm starting to think "U.S. after Atlasia's collapse" is a good starting point, especially if people are jumping to the idea of diplomacy between games. Our origin story could be that the original Atlasian government collapsed sometime this summer, and an alliance of regional leaders decided to reunite the country. The Atlasian government is a rump state that still controls bits of the country, whose propaganda feeds their citizens the illusion of continued control. Swearing never to repeat the calamities of war, we will rather negotiate with them than launch another war.

Of course, from Atlasia's view we're the rump state that failed to take over the country, and they're the good guys who negotiate instead of launching war. The joke is that it's impossible to find out who's telling the truth.

[Foucaulf]

Part of my opinion on country choice is also how much the GM knows about it. I would prefer U.S. or Canada because I know about them a good deal, but if anyone gives me resources on South America I'll pour over them.

A scenario like Greece is at risk of being too "railroaded". An imaginary scenario takes a long time to acclimate.

After the speaker election is over, I think parliament should vote on a motion to adopt a scenario. So far I think U.S. or South America are viable ones, but anyone else willing to make a map can step up.

[Foucaulf]

That, and sites where I can look up the history, major policy issues and all.

This is relevant, since I have to make a decision as people keep popping out countries. I'm writing a scenario based on South America (minus French Guyana). Rest assured that I don't want to make this gimmicky, and I'll make sure the events are generic-sounding but different from issues Americans face (I'm thinking of stuff like negotiating with pseudo-FARC, Brazilian evangelicals petitioning a ban for gay marriage, etc). Meanwhile cabinet can go in a more American policy route.

I'll post something by tonight, and if parliament adopts it that post will be the base scenario. Future GMs can, through responding to parliamentarians' questions, figure out the status quo.

If I've upset any of you, maybe you'll be appeased by this chart of our Parliament as it stands. (SVG format)

[Foucaulf]

Okay, here's my final word on worldbuilding. Below are two different bills that set this game's setting. I would like Parliament to introduce the bills to the floor and vote on them. The bill that passes is what we'll work with from now on. Feel free to change the language, though please don't clog up the process with a dozen amendments back and forth.

Keep in mind that I am still being mostly hands-off toward the game. The setting is really just a way for me and everyone else to mine up issues that keep everyone interested. These bills are just a start: our world will really be determined by the conversations between me and the MPs.

As you debate this, I'll also finalize an electoral system we can adopt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Want to criticize this more? Meet me if you want on IRC, #mockparlement.

[Foucaulf]

Okay, here's the deal with the first election. I thought it would be a good idea to have everyone in the game run for a seat, but I'm an idiot. That would just lead to everyone voting for themselves.

The plan I raised in IRC was this: for our first election, we just run a national party list. It still has the same problem as everyone voting for themselves, but the intrigue that matters is the list order. In other words, people need to join parties and figure out who should get elected and who shouldn't.

We can "apportion" out the constituencies once the election's over. Party list leaders have priority in choosing a seat. Registration by constituency for all will also be available.

Thoughts?

[Foucaulf]

i like the idea in principle but i was planning on forming a localist party which i guess wouldn't work all that well under that system

I understand that's a problem. I'm not opposed to the idea of constituencies - they should exist, and there will be ones more competitive than others. The dirtier parts of Atlasia will emerge along with it, but in our game that's not a bug, but a feature.

I just don't want the first election to be screwy and turn everyone off the game. But we will allow joint party lists this election, so maybe you can create your party and negotiate a spot on another's list.

I'm reattaching Flo's constituency map below. Friendly reminder that, until we have an election law, none of your constituency claims will be honoured.

[Foucaulf]

Only on lunch break at work, but more thoughts:

My plan had been that, if there is an event government needs to tackle (hint), I will send it directly to government. I would not send unsolicited information to individual members. However, individual members can ask me questions and I will respond.

Using actual SA cabinets as a model is not the best, since almost all SA governments are presidential and not parliamentary. I want to encourage something that is not immediately obvious - frequent cabinet reshuffles and portfolio switching. That's why I'm not a big fan of proposing fixed positions.

I'll write a draft election bill tonight. Make sure to check out Leinad's bill last page. The speaker must decide if he wants to continue putting worldbuilding bills to the floor after one is approved.

[Foucaulf]

Here's a draft election law, not even in the proper format yet:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

TL;DR: We're doing things the Scottish way. 10 FPTP, one PR constituency with 10 seats. Form a PR list however you like, but list leaders send them to the RG. For your sake, have some warm bodies on your list just in case a landslide victory occurs.

Elections need to happen for at least a day and at least once every ten weeks. For the first election, we're just doing straight PR. Once it's over, those who lead lists get first picks at constituencies, which are intended to stay. But Parliament can exercise the "nuclear option" of straight PR at any time, which would rescramble the constituencies again...

[Foucaulf]

It's good that people are debating the bill in the other thread!

There should be another section on recognition of parties in there (Xahar made this point), and a clause on replacing a MP. I think every country that has a national PR system would have the next MP on the same list take the spot.

[Foucaulf]

While Parliament continues to hammer out specifics, I've been slacking off for a bit. Sorry about that.

Between now and the election, anyone should feel free to ask in this thread the game's status quo policies. I gave a partial answer in Hash's thread, but that seems to have died out.

Without getting too pedantic, the setup will involve parliament trying to pass policies that will be applied throughout the continent; think of it as playing a unitary state. The status quo, however, would be that each South American country keeps its own policy on an issue until legislation is passed. I'll present the categories these policies fall into when creating policy briefings, and MPs can take them into account in whatever way they choose.

[Foucaulf]

Citizens of South America,

Sorry for my radio silence the past week. Work takes up time, and not seeing any policy requests in here isn't a good motivator.

Now that an election is imminent, it's about time I figure out policies we could start on. As a reminder, as of now my agenda involves writing policy briefs, at least one a week. Each will detail current national policies in South America on a certain subject. The policy briefs serve both as a canonical description of the game's status quo as well as a document that informs parliamentary debate.

Looking at the five major parties' platforms, I think I'll take on the following agenda:

• Immigration policies, and the obstacles to a continential citizenship law.
• Views and attitudes on the renationalization of certain industries.
• Reestablishing relationships with the (former) United States.
• The status of abortion.
• Social welfare schemes for the poor, universal or means-tested.

Once cabinet is formed, I will also contact them and provide them with exclusive information.

In Unity and Freedom.

[Foucaulf]

Sounds good!

Could we also get information on same-sex marriage, legalization of various  drugs, and the death penalty?

I imagine it'll take me two weeks to write up what I listed. I'll gladly put those on the docket after the first five, but in the meantime anyone should feel free to propose topics.