[MistyTiger]

Nobody is kissing my ass. I just spoke nicely and politely, so in return I was treated nicely and politely. I never expect the VIP treatment.

Personally, if I get such great treatment...I'd be suspicious. Why am I being treated so well? What does that person want?

Donald,

Thank you. I like looking good, at least for a week.

[HoniSoit]

Dear fellow SN-RF members,

I decide to resign from the PoFo Parliament game because of the acceptance of block-voting in the game. My position as the parliamentary leader which I didn't actively seek but met no principle objection is open to any candidate who is willing to lead the SN-RF.

The reason I decide to leave is because block-voting which Dan has accepted for the confidence vote is going to considerably discourage active participation by penalising parties with active members who are actually committed to contributing to the simulation by discussing and voting on issues. By allowing block-voting, PoFo Parliament, with all the dynamics resulting from complex interactions between individual memebers as well as parties, would likely be reduced to negotiations among a handful of party leaders who have the power to block vote, leaving them with little need to consult and actively mobilise their members to discuss and vote on issues. We would likely end up with most members losing interests because their individual votes, thus opinions, are no longer important due to block-voting - they no longer need to be persuaded by their opponents or their party leaders, and we have good reason to believe that those party leaders would wish their members are absent, thus enabling the party leaders to block-vote at their will. I see little value in playing such a game that disrespects individual opinions and discourages active participation.

I have voiced my opposition to block-voting on several occasions and have argued against SN-RF adopting block-voting despite the facy not adopting it would disadvantage SN-RF. I hope those in the SN-RF who still find the game worth playing would continue to oppose block-voting.

I've had an interesting time playing the game, and I wish those who continue to play good luck.

Regards,
HoniSoit

[Donna]

Honi, the only reason the SN-RF-THP (including yourself) oppose bloc voting is because it accurately expresses the will of parliament, which would naturally produce a PUC-SLD-CA-PNL minority government rather than an SN-RF-THP one. I will add, it's a shame to see you resign from the game simply because your coalition will be unable to authoritatively establish itself.

[HoniSoit]

It really doesn't matter anymore.

But I need to point out that no one has actually addressed the substance of my arguments against block-voting, and I rather hope I was wrong because PoFo Parliament is a great idea and very much worth playing, and thus deserves to develop in a way that attracts more people to actively participate. Winning the government, though important, is not the only goal of the game; the really fun part is to discuss and negotiate among memebers. Block-voting is taking the memebers out of the equation, rendering the game uninteresting to say the least.

I also don't agree it is the will of the parliament to accept block-voting - after all, it is decided by Dan alone and has not been subject to any vote. Rather, it is the will of the people whose parties have very few active members.

[Zyx]

HoniSoit, where were your arguments against block-voting? I've my own, but I'd like to be enlightened some. Linky please.

[HoniSoit]

Three posts up, Zyx.

[OldMajor]

HoniSoit is absolutely correct.

[Zyx]

Oh, HoniSoit, we agree with you. Bloc voting is bollocks. It empowers party leaders at the expense of the voters and this was counter the original intention of the constitution.

[Donna]

The question of bloc voting is a matter of party discipline and policy. It is really no one elses business how a party regulates its membership and platform. If a party member is strongly against bloc voting despite it being a party policy, they should consider finding a new party if they feel that their conscience will not allow them to conform to party discipline most of the time. Dissent on a few issues is acceptable, but if your beliefs differ from your party too much, one should leave their party.

[HoniSoit]

You still haven't addressed my concerns about the effects of block-voting, Donald.

Yes, parties can have their policies but there are limits. These limits are determined crucally by how much they contribute to or undermine the simulation. If a party policy is extremely detrimental to the game, then I don't see any reason why we should not prohibit that policy.

[Donna]

To be honest HoniSoit, I'm not particularly fond of bloc voting except when it is necessary for political survival (for example, Dan's confidence vote which expires Tuesday). If we're going to abolish bloc voting, then voting cycles need to last alot longer than 48 or 72 hours, especially on matters of grave importance such approving a proposed government. How many MP's have been AWOL for the past week? Over half of parliament isn't even aware of all the drama that was unleashed Friday morning. Even you have to admit that isn't fair.

[Demosthenes]

If you play warcraft online you can't join a guild and then relinquish all control to your guildmaster who then runs you around the map doing whatever wierd crap people do in that game.

Same principle here. The nature of the game require active participation by those serving as MP.

The issue really isn't bloc voting. If the PNL say they will vote as Dave votes, no one is arguing that right, but those in Dave's party MUST come forward long enough to cast ballots to the effect of their master's wishes.

Donald, can you address Honi's concern at all? I mean, I assume you want this to work as much as anyone else that is still posting here, but you're not willing to compromise and I'm betting the first time this rule you like so much goes against you (like say right now, if Vald, Ingliz, and Falx all bloc voted...I'm not sure you guys could stop the minority government from forming. Nets is gone, no PUC vote) you would begin to understand why active participation SHOULD count.

[Donna]

Demosthenes, if we're going to regard active participation with a certain primacy, I can't support this unless we hold new elections and basically re-tool the game.

[OldMajor]

I'd be open to new elections personally after there is some further discussion on working out the finer details of how the game can proceed.

(Is it possible to get Opinion Polls in this area?)

[HoniSoit]

Donald - I wouldn'd mind a new election if we can agree on a set of detailed rules regarding the formation of government. The chance is we probably would not have a single majority party so we need to work out how we deal with that.

[Zyx]

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=104802

Here, try those.

Is this viable? It's orderly. :-p.

[Donna]

Donald - I wouldn'd mind a new election if we can agree on a set of detailed rules regarding the formation of government. The chance is we probably would not have a single majority party so we need to work out how we deal with that.

At this point, if Dan's motion of confidence does not assume a binding authority on Tuesday when it expires, the game will have no choice but to reformat or die.

[ingliz]

Dear fellow SN-RF members,

I decide to resign from the PoFo Parliament game because of the acceptance of block-voting in the game. My position as the deputy parliamentary leader which I didn't actively seek but met no principle objection is open to any candidate who is willing to join the SN-RF leadership.

The reason I decide to leave is because block-voting which Dan has accepted for the confidence vote is going to considerably discourage active participation by penalising parties with active members who are actually committed to contributing to the simulation by discussing and voting on issues. By allowing block-voting, PoFo Parliament, with all the dynamics resulting from complex interactions between individual memebers as well as parties, would likely be reduced to negotiations among a handful of party leaders who have the power to block vote, leaving them with little need to consult and actively mobilise their members to discuss and vote on issues. We would likely end up with most members losing interests because their individual votes, thus opinions, are no longer important due to block-voting - they no longer need to be persuaded by their opponents or their party leaders, and we have good reason to believe that those party leaders would wish their members are absent, thus enabling the party leaders to block-vote at their will. I see little value in playing such a game that disrespects individual opinions and discourages active participation.

I have voiced my opposition to block-voting on several occasions and have argued against SN-RF adopting block-voting despite the fact that not adopting it would disadvantage SN-RF. I hope those in the SN-RF who still find the game worth playing would continue to oppose block-voting.

I've had an interesting time playing the game, and I wish those who continue to play good luck.

Regards,

ingliz

[HoniSoit]

I just experienced déjà vu.

[Zyx]

Before you two leave, comment on my thread. It may not be accepted but at least it'd have more respect with you all amending and discussing it.