Should NPC elections continue?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just a poll to measure interest, really. Obviously the game fatigue is real; that much is evident when people start turning to meme parties, bills, secessionist movements, etc. I thought that the NPCs were a good way to increase activity once again, as well as to actually reward parties for things other than registration advantages. But even then, I was one of only three people (besides WB and Cao) actually doing anything in recent months before Peanut started going AWOL.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Short answer: no.

Long(er) answer: As enjoyable as NPCs were at their height, they ultimately proved to suffer from the same fatal weakness that has brought the game as a whole to this point, i.e. over-reliance on one individual (the GM) to move Heaven and Earth to keep the entire scheme in motion. I am hearing a lot of talk from various places about any number of contemplated reforms to "save the game" and all of them have this problem. There is not a realistic scenario where these elections can be saved and I am not entirely sure they should be.

[Lumine]

Haven't been around for the past month, but if my opinion is of any help, amicably suspending them seems like a very sensible option.

Ultimately, they require an active GM team (and I say team because it's no longer feasible for a single individual to be the entire Game Engine) and active player base to work, and if both are not a reality right now, it makes sense to focus on other stuff and bring them back when - and if - those factors are back. The system was built with flexibility in mind after all.

Plus, if things have gotten so dire that people believe toying with seccession or revolution (AGAIN) is going to make the game any better, it does seem a bit unnecessary to invest the remaining player energy on those contests.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So how many times did I raise the concern during its height "What happens after Lumine?"

In a vacuum yes, in the situation we have now, it just isn't practical until a person or team of persons can oversee them in a balanced and sustainable way.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Suspension is the best course of action. This needs an active GM.

[OBD]

Tbh I’d be willing to help out but the interest is far too low as of jow

[Blair]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

Some of us like writing speeches and actually running simulated campaigns...

[Blair]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

Some of us like writing speeches and actually running simulated campaigns...

I use to write pages and pages of speeches for campaigns! It should be for people’s own campaigns though

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

Some of us like writing speeches and actually running simulated campaigns...

This has nothing to do with anything in Blair's post. He is correct, NPC elections are wholly irrelevant  to the rest of the game.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

Some of us like writing speeches and actually running simulated campaigns...

This has nothing to do with anything in Blair's post. He is correct, NPC elections are wholly irrelevant  to the rest of the game.

Technically, nothing we do in this game is relevant. It was a great feature of the game when Lumine was GM and it was popular for about a year.

But it looks like I'm in the minority here. There's no point in continuing this if only three people give a damn and the rest are apathetic.

[wxtransit]

No they were invented because Labor got too good at winning elections.

Besides that they make no material difference to the two parts of the game- winning elected office, and passing policies.

Some of us like writing speeches and actually running simulated campaigns...

This has nothing to do with anything in Blair's post. He is correct, NPC elections are wholly irrelevant  to the rest of the game.

Technically, nothing we do in this game is relevant. It was a great feature of the game when Lumine was GM and it was popular for about a year.

But it looks like I'm in the minority here. There's no point in continuing this if only three people give a damn and the rest are apathetic.

Change three to twenty and NPC elections to Atlasia...

But yes, two things I long have had issues with in this game are:
1. The fact that campaigning or in-game events rarely, if ever, effect election outcomes
2. The fact that NPC elections don't actually effect anything tangible in the game

These two issues are separate but related. I do wish there was a game mechanic so that NPC elections had real stakes (such as a regional Senate seat being determined off of who holds the most governorships in a region, as an example I'm pulling out of thin air). Additionally, as much as I am a fan of GOTV, at the end of the day elections come down to zombies and vote dumps. It's really hard to get people motivated about policymaking and actual game mechanics when such actions have no consequence on the election results, as least in my experience.

In sum, I believe we need to raise the stakes.

[Sirius_]

It would seem that the best move in this situation would be to suspend campaigning during this time until more interest is shown again. It should be fine to move local elections back to the background like in the past without violating the statutes, which don't require the campaigning system to happen unless there's something I don't know about. We can always leave the option for their return on the table.