Eslandola's Colonial Council - Discussion

[Maxim I]

Wow, so much to read...

Ok, small recap:

1 seat for every TC: yeeey certitude for every TC!

1 seat for an independent trader (no general vote, except if the independents can't choose): yeeey bribing!

1 seat for every region: yeeey intrigues as a TC can have a total of 4 seats with this rule, having the majority in the council!

And ofcourse 1 PM which has to be elected every 6 months and who has to campaign. Moc's are not necessary but could help persuading people! I loved the Mitgardia Prime Ministers. I would not mind that even non-Eslandolans can vote as this would mean more intrigues :) IC it could make sense by saying it are the embassadors who vote...

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Maxim I

[Capt Wolf]

17 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

1 seat for an independent trader (no general vote, except if the independents can't choose): yeeey bribing!

And if it had to go to a faction-wide vote, the candidates would presumably still only be independents.

17 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I would not mind that even non-Eslandolans can vote as this would mean more intrigues :) IC it could make sense by saying it are the embassadors who vote...

While I am not familiar with the GoH precedents, I would be very opposed to voting for Eslandolan PM by anyone other than Eslandolans. That said, there's nothing stopping players from other factions from trying to influence the votes of Eslandolans...

Edited November 16, 2016 by Capt Wolf

[Kolonialbeamter]

All this talk about number of votes for what faction/TC is neat and stuff, and I'm sure you'll get to a working result. Just don't forget to fill it with life. And by life I mean intrigue  From my point it won't matter who's got the majority if you only play it nice. Is there any incentive to - for example - play rough vs. a specific TC? Just promise - and grant - low taxes for everyone, and voilà: second term. This will get boring soon, and your system will never live up to its potential. That's why I suggested to hard code an unalterable layer of intrigue/corruption into this system (no such thing as unconstitutional constitutional law ). And if the different-tax-rates idea I proposed earlier isn't to you liking, just come up with something else:

• the members of the PM's TC will automatically receive a 20% increase in property yield paid by the state (which might lead to the necessity of raising taxes... for some), or
• build a state owned royal property that belongs to the PM for the term - who might or might not pass on its revenue to his supporters, or
• whatever nasty things you can think of  In general, there should be benefits that only apply to the PM and/or the leading party, while the others get nothing, or even have to pay for all that 

[Capt Wolf]

6 minutes ago, Kolonialbeamter said:

Just don't forget to fill it with life. And by life I mean intrigue  From my point it won't matter who's got the majority if you only play it nice.

@Kolonialbeamter, you've never been in the TC monthly PMs. Trust me, there's plenty of intrigue that can be played out in the council. Operation KMA was the exception, not the rule.

[Sir Stig]

Just thinking. What if the council needs 2 or 3 cases on the agenda before they can assemble to a vote? Then each representative/minister/member of the council decides how many votes to use on each case. So in order to get one thing approved you have to risk losing on another. I think that could lead to a lot of intrigues.

[gedren_y]

I'm willing to agree that the 'seafarers seats' should be given the same proportion each time, like they are a solid constituency, but the characters and players controlling them should be voted on with the candidates coming from within their group. Think primary elections for a party that is in the solid majority.

About the players controlling seafarers seats; one from each group. About the assembly seats; the reason I went with a 2, 2, 2, 3 layout was so that a TC getting the independents to vote with them could gain a majority among the seafarers. They would still need the islands seats' votes, but it adds a layer of intrigue.

We need a scale of how we apportion the assembly votes for the various islands, how many player controllers for each island, and how many assembly votes the player gets. The player controlled assembly votes should only be a third of the islands' assembly votes total. The remaining votes should get apportioned by MOC contest, splitting the vote totals by team faction totals. Judging, well I think the leadership can devise a fair method.

I think the settlement sizes should determine the number of assembly votes an island gets: small-6, medium-9, large-12. This would help provide incentive to build up communities.

The PM election should be an MOC campaigning event, and then a members' vote. If there is somehow a 50/50 assembly split in the Colonial Council, the PM casts the deciding vote.

The idea that the Continental Council (leadership controlled) can veto anything below a 2/3 majority is fine by me. I still say for realism, the assembly should be 12 characters: royals-3, provinces-9. Since the current leadership is three people, the only problem in getting a quick decision might be if one of them becomes unreachable. Then maybe the PM player joins the decision making.

The idea of carrying out governing incentives is fine by me. Favoritism happening makes for good story, and can spur some reaction MOCs.

[Maxim I]

To my Eslandolan friends, don't listen to someone from another faction promoting corruption and a bad government :D I see what you are doing there KolonialBeamter :p

how the regions choose their representative, that should be determined by the regions themself as it would mean a certain independency. 

[gedren_y]

Who gets the player controlled seats could be determined by the Eslandolan builders who's builds go towards a settlement's status. A simple settlement PM for the decision. Someone wants to MOC campaigning for the seat, by all means.

[Capt Wolf]

43 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

To my Eslandolan friends, don't listen to someone from another faction promoting corruption and a bad government :D I see what you are doing there KolonialBeamter :p 

Yes! Pay no attention to the foreign rabble-rousers!

[Kolonialbeamter]

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

To my Eslandolan friends, don't listen to someone from another faction promoting corruption and a bad government :D I see what you are doing there KolonialBeamter :p

27 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

Yes! Pay no attention to the foreign rabble-rousers!

Not sure how intriguing your PMs are, but I'm sure there's a difference between 'constructive corruption' (TM pending ) and mere bickering 

[Kai NRG]

3 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

...As for votes necessary to pass a bill, I think 51% of all possible votes is the way to go. Using a percentage of only cast votes actually encourages vote suppression, and if you use percentage of possible votes, no one can complain of hanky-panky in the process...

Sure it encourages vote suppression, but how is that achievable?  No player can force another player not to vote.  On the other hand, if possible votes are counted, then an absentee automatically counts as a vote against, regardless of his actual position, which I think could possibly yield skewed results or intrigue to introduce bills during the absence of specific individuals.  Of course, trying to ram things through in the absence of opponents could occur regardless.  I'm not quite sure yet mathematically which one seems to be easier to take advantage of.

55 minutes ago, Kolonialbeamter said:

Not sure how intriguing your PMs are, but I'm sure there's a difference between 'constructive corruption' (TM pending ) and mere bickering 

 

While building in an inherent benefit for the leading party would certainly add intrigue, I think a state of fair boredom might, all things considered, be preferable... 

3 hours ago, Maxim I said:

And ofcourse 1 PM which has to be elected every 6 months and who has to campaign. Moc's are not necessary but could help persuading people! I loved the Mitgardia Prime Ministers. I would not mind that even non-Eslandolans can vote as this would mean more intrigues :) IC it could make sense by saying it are the embassadors who vote...

As I mentioned earlier non-Eslandians voting for our PM just wouldn't work in the heavily political atmosphere of BoBS... I mean, there would be more non-Eslandian votes than Eslandian, probably, and now candidates would have to cater to the Corries as much as to Eslandola!

[Capt Wolf]

24 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

Sure it encourages vote suppression, but how is that achievable?  No player can force another player not to vote.  On the other hand, if possible votes are counted, then an absentee automatically counts as a vote against, regardless of his actual position, which I think could possibly yield skewed results or intrigue to introduce bills during the absence of specific individuals.  Of course, trying to ram things through in the absence of opponents could occur regardless.  I'm not quite sure yet mathematically which one seems to be easier to take advantage of.

"Here, take these 50DBs and don't vote on this bill." That's how it is achievable. But, that's really no different than paying 50DBs to vote "no" on a bill. Given that requiring a percentage of the possible votes rather than a percentage of the actual votes requires the greater number of votes to pass, I would think that would be the harder approach to manipulate.

How about this for an added level of intrigue: 51% of possible votes to pass, but 2/3 of actual votes to be veto proof.

[dr_spock]

You guys could set up council rules or bylaws like having a quorum before a vote can take place.  If there isn't enough council members present for a quorum then no vote can happen.  You could fine council members for not attending council meeting or hang them upside-down at the next meeting.  The council members can elect a chairperson (PM?) to chair the meetings and set the meeting agenda and schedule.   Avast, this is sounding like setting up LUG. 

 

[Capt Wolf]

8 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

You could fine council members for not attending council meeting or hang them upside-down at the next meeting.

There's a position for Guy's uncle in the new government!

9 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

You guys could set up council rules or bylaws like having a quorum before a vote can take place.

A sound suggestion!

10 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

Avast, this is sounding like setting up LUG. 

Or herding cats, or something.

Revolutions come into this world like bastard children... half improvised and half compromised

[Kai NRG]

4 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

"Here, take these 50DBs and don't vote on this bill." That's how it is achievable. But, that's really no different than paying 50DBs to vote "no" on a bill. Given that requiring a percentage of the possible votes rather than a percentage of the actual votes requires the greater number of votes to pass, I would think that would be the harder approach to manipulate.

How about this for an added level of intrigue: 51% of possible votes to pass, but 2/3 of actual votes to be veto proof.

Okay, that makes sense (requiring a greater number of votes for a bill to pass).  So I agree that 51% of total possible votes would be a better way to handle it.

Most cases of responsibilities that I listed before aren't up to veto (i.e. a simple majority would settle them once and for all).  As I suggested, there would be only one case requiring a 2/3s, and that would be a veto, not overruling a veto:

On 11/15/2016 at 7:00 AM, Kai NRG said:

...the recognition of TCs and granting charters.  IMHO the Old World Council decides (we're talking about granting charters for new TCs, granting charters for Royal Properties, and granting charters for Settlements), but the New World can veto within 2 weeks by a 2/3s majority.  [Edit: That would be vetoing a yes, of course.  A no can't be vetoed.]...

That could be 2/3s actual votes, which might add intrigue, or it might just add needless complication. 

4 hours ago, dr_spock said:

... You could fine council members for not attending council meeting or hang them upside-down at the next meeting...

Ooh.  I love this idea!!! 

Seriously, members totally should be fined.  But then as an offset they should have a salary.  25 DBs a month?  And a fine is 100 DBs.  And if you don't pay your fine (fill out a transaction form) within the week, you get hung and Eslandola confiscates the 100 without waiting for you.

4 hours ago, dr_spock said:

The council members can elect a chairperson (PM?) to chair the meetings and set the meeting agenda and schedule.

That should be the PM's job alright.  We're still discussing whether he should be elected by the population at large or by the council though, aren't we?

4 hours ago, dr_spock said:

You guys could set up council rules or bylaws like having a quorum before a vote can take place. 

Generally I think decisions should be pushed through at a decent rate, and since a quorum would tend to slow things down, it's not really meeting my favor...   We'll probably be slow enough as it is!  A fine should be enough to keep most of the members present most of the time...

[Capt Wolf]

39 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

Generally I think decisions should be pushed through at a decent rate, and since a quorum would tend to slow things down, it's not really meeting my favor...   We'll probably be slow enough as it is!  A fine should be enough to keep most of the members present most of the time...

In this case, a quorum could be defined as needing at least 51% of votes possible to actually be cast for a vote to be valid, i.e., if there are 21 votes possible, there need to be at least 11 votes cast (or if 7 votes are possible, 4 would need to be cast). But if we require 51% of the possible votes for a bill to pass, that's the same thing as far as getting enough votes in favor. So, again, requiring 51% of possible votes for a bill to pass addresses the problem.

Was that confusing enough?

44 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

We're still discussing whether he should be elected by the population at large or by the council though, aren't we?

We are, but I think you and I might be the only ones coming out in favor of the council electing the PM so far. We need to hear from more players.

[gedren_y]

The math on the vote numbers that I came up with, where the 2/3rds islands' vote that is apportioned in an MOC competition could conceivably get >50% without the players' votes, if the supporting side overloads with MOCs. To get 2/3rds of the full assembly, though, would require enough players' votes. The 2/3rds passing vote would make a bill veto proof, meaning the Continental Council couldn't strike it down if they wanted to.

A passed bill would be signed by the PM, and possibly the reigning monarch if he/she supported the bill. I know we have a King now, but if he dies, who's in the line of succession?

[Capt Wolf]

1 minute ago, gedren_y said:

The math on the vote numbers that I came up with, where the 2/3rds islands' vote that is apportioned in an MOC competition could conceivably get >50% without the players' votes, if the supporting side overloads with MOCs. To get 2/3rds of the full assembly, though, would require enough players' votes. The 2/3rds passing vote would make a bill veto proof, meaning the Continental Council couldn't strike it down if they wanted to.

A passed bill would be signed by the PM, and possibly the reigning monarch if he/she supported the bill. I know we have a King now, but if he dies, who's in the line of succession?

I must admit that I'm not a fan of an MOC competition weighting a bill vote. I much prefer other ways of encouraging MOC building in association with the council. Perhaps a bill isn't passed until an MOC relating to it has been built, or some such. But if MOC competitions grant votes, it just turns into a skill contest.

[gedren_y]

The criteria for judging could be about story, or the creative use of a common part. The point is the more members that build for their given side, the higher their score goes. Depending on the type of build, these could also be licensed, and build up Eslandola as a whole.

[Kai NRG]

9 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

In this case, a quorum could be defined as needing at least 51% of votes possible to actually be cast for a vote to be valid, i.e., if there are 21 votes possible, there need to be at least 11 votes cast (or if 7 votes are possible, 4 would need to be cast). But if we require 51% of the possible votes for a bill to pass, that's the same thing as far as getting enough votes in favor. So, again, requiring 51% of possible votes for a bill to pass addresses the problem.

Was that confusing enough?

So it can't pass unless there's a quorum, and a quorum = the amount of votes needed to pass.  Yeah.  Superfluous. 

7 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

I must admit that I'm not a fan of an MOC competition weighting a bill vote. I much prefer other ways of encouraging MOC building in association with the council. Perhaps a bill isn't passed until an MOC relating to it has been built, or some such. But if MOC competitions grant votes, it just turns into a skill contest.

I agree with you here... votes shouldn't be influenced by building skill (or story writing skill).  Plus requiring MOCs like that is quickly going to get onerous.

[Bregir]

This is interesting to follow, I must say, but I can't help to wonder... where does this leave the new independent Nellisan Republic? Are you expecting the Fontonajo's to support this?

[Kolonialbeamter]

23 minutes ago, Bregir said:

This is interesting to follow, I must say, but I can't help to wonder... where does this leave the new independent Nellisan Republic? Are you expecting the Fontonajo's to support this?

*chokes on popcorn he grabbed before*

[Sir Stig]

51 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

So it can't pass unless there's a quorum, and a quorum = the amount of votes needed to pass.  Yeah.  Superfluous. 

I agree with you here... votes shouldn't be influenced by building skill (or story writing skill).  Plus requiring MOCs like that is quickly going to get onerous.

Do we read this the same way? If 51 % is needed to make a decision, those 51% (or whatever % of votes are cast) that would be the new basis for 2/3 of votes to pass the bill. So the Quorum (minimum 51) would not be the same amount of votes in favor, to pass the bill. As long as it is a little time (a week or two) to cast the vote, it should not be a problem. If you don't have time to cast a vote within that time, your vote is not counted. I don't think we should have automatic no. The council could have a no assembly rule during christmas and summer vacation, so the risk of someone trying to squeeze through unpopular decisions when no one are paying attention would be minimal. Also, in order to keep it tidy each proposal should be presented by the Statthouder/PM or the appropriate minister (War/Trade/etc). Then each member of the council should have only 1 comment, with one follow up comment (to correct misunderstandings and such) on each case, to prevent it becoming a 5 page long read to get a grip of things. Long winded discussions will probably happen before cases reach the council anyway.

And I think we should find a more time appropriate term than Prime Minister. Stattholder/Statthouder or something like that sound better in my ears. 

Summary of what I have percieved, mixed with my opinions:

Old World Council - bacically just a veto fallback for extreme cases

New World Council - This is where the future political direction and internal law of Eslandola will be decided upon.

King/Monarch - The face of the nation, that can attend in social settings within Eslandola and other factions. Retains the status to address the people in cases he/she feels the core values of Eslandolan culture are endangered, or comment on the fabulous things that have happened in the last year and hopes for the future (Kings new year speech?).

New World Council

Consisting of Ministers for Trade, Military etc, chosen (by the Old world Council?) among the representatives in the council. These are TC Representatives (chosen within each TC), Regional Representatives (chosen by the majors of each region), and Other Mandates (chosen by the people?). Any constellation would have to end with an uneven number of votes. So when we get new regions/TCs, there would have to be 2 representatives chosen whenever new ones are added (this could be any two of TC Representative/1 Regional/Other).

Whenever a case are up for hearing the council gathers.2 cases if we go for 3 votes/representative, to make prioritizing more important, and it adds a trade off layer to the political process (realistic).

After new bills are ratified (passed by vote), the law of the land are updated/posted by Secretary of State (should be a position that have a salary, since it involves real work), on behalf of the Old World Council.

 

There are enough challenges and MOCs in other parts of the game, so I am against required MOCs. The only MOC I see as reasonable is presenting your sigfig representative, scene optional.

[Sir Stig]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

This is interesting to follow, I must say, but I can't help to wonder... where does this leave the new independent Nellisan Republic? Are you expecting the Fontonajo's to support this?

Why wouldn't the Fontanajos support it? @Elostirion They would have their own region, influence in the Colonial Council, access to Eslandolas fleet, TC monopolies, and future possibilities. If they do not want to take part in this brave new endeavor, the handling of that matter would have to be decided in the Colonial Council. Many Eslandolans have interests on Nelissa, and it is not recognized as a sovereign state by Eslandola. There are several possible outcomes, but my opinion is that the strength of Eslandola lies in the diversity, color and flavor of each region, working together for greater gains. Wanting to create and have power to ensure good conditions for future trade is as Eslandolan as it gets. What he have to ask himself is if he will have a greater chance of that in a separate Nellisan Republic or as a part of something bigger. I believe the latter, and his opinions are much valued and welcome (Can't remember I have read any comments from him in this thread). Nelissa is a great asset to Eslandola, and Eslandola is a big market to Nelissa. Now that we have negotiations about a new governing style going, where all Eslandolans get their say (through their representative), we can stand together against any outside threats, stronger than ever before.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Sir Stig

[Capt Wolf]

38 minutes ago, Sir Stig said:

Do we read this the same way? If 51 % is needed to make a decision, those 51% (or whatever % of votes are cast) that would be the new basis for 2/3 of votes to pass the bill. So the Quorum (minimum 51) would not be the same amount of votes in favor, to pass the bill. As long as it is a little time (a week or two) to cast the vote, it should not be a problem.

@Sir Stig, Kai read it the way I intended it: If you have 7 players with 1 vote each on the council, you need at least 4 voters to make up a quorum, but all votes are decided best out of 7, regardless of how many votes are cast. Therefore, you need 4 votes to pass a bill.

40 minutes ago, Sir Stig said:

And I think we should find a more time appropriate term than Prime Minister. Stattholder/Statthouder or something like that sound better in my ears. 

I've been using PM for gedren's suggested Prime Magistrate, but I would be in favor of Stadtholder rather than any of the PM alternatives.

42 minutes ago, Sir Stig said:

New World Council

Consisting of Ministers for Trade, Military etc, chosen (by the Old world Council?) among the representatives in the council. These are TC Representatives (chosen within each TC), Regional Representatives (chosen by the majors of each region), and Other Mandates (chosen by the people?). Any constellation would have to end with an uneven number of votes. So when we get new regions/TCs, there would have to be 2 representatives chosen whenever new ones are added (this could be any two of TC Representative/1 Regional/Other).

Or the PM/Stadtholder could be the tiebreaking vote, rather than having to juggle the number of seats to an odd number.

And I think Sir Stig is correct that, in general, I don't see participation in the votes being an issue if we allow reasonable real-world time to make sure someone isn't away on vacation or such.

6 minutes ago, Sir Stig said:

Why wouldn't the Fontanajos support it? @Elostirion They would have their own region, influence in the Colonial Council, access to Eslandolas fleet, TC monopolies, and future possibilities. If they do not want to take part in this brave new endeavor, the handling of that matter would have to be decided in the Colonial Council. Many Eslandolans have interests on Nelissa, and it is not recognized as a sovereign state by Eslandola. There are several possible outcomes, but my opinion is that the strength of Eslandola lies in the diversity, color and flavor of each region, working together for greater gains. Wanting to create and have power to ensure good conditions for future trade is as Eslandolan as it gets. What he have to ask himself is if he will have a greater chance of that in a separate Nellisan Republic or as a part of something bigger. I believe the latter, and his opinions are much valued and welcome (Can't remember I have read any comments from him in this thread). Nelissa is a great asset to Eslandola, and Eslandola is a big market to Nelissa. Now that we have negotiations about a new governing style going, where all Eslandolans get their say (through their representative), we can stand together against any outside threats, stronger than ever before.

I am hopeful that the Fontanajos will support the new government, and I agree that there is much for them to like in these proposals, but I can imagine scenarios where they wouldn't. That said, it would be helpful to hear from @Elostirion.