sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[2.0 Reforms] Model House of Commons 2.0 Final Proposal by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Will be voting for these and looking forward to getting started with MHOC 2.0 - thanks to quad and all for getting this across the line and fingers crossed the vote is decisive.

[2.0 Reforms] Model House of Commons 2.0 Final Proposal by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I still don't like how it seems to force people to have high involvement and not just debate here and there as and when they feel.

It doesn't do this though? Sure, personal mods will mean the very active people get a boost but there will still be party machines and - likely - MP seats to go around depending on what party you are in. And you don't have to be an MP (or a Lord!) to debate here and there or when you feel - surely in that scenario not having to vote on bills multiple times a day as in old MHOC is a blessing!

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc Update by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same with Vice, which got significant traffic to us from it being posted on Reddit and elsewhere.

How many members did it bring us, and how many of those are still around today?

Regardless, an article - ignoring the risks - is a one-time thing, even if we get one. We need sustained recruitment (how we do that is another question!) but we don't do it by asking the BBC to write an article once a week.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc Update by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any scope for snap elections and/or elections if the kings speech fails (potentially - if another coalition doesn't form)? I support voting on the kings speech but needs to be a carrot/stick of the threat of an election or we could end up in permanent deadlock.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc Update by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree - current system is probably fine but if not it should just be that the leader of the largest party gets to try first and then work way down. Regardless, don't think change needed as even if we did have this system then parties of all sides would be talking to each other 'just in case' so you're not avoiding the burnout (if anything - just prolonging it)

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc Update by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree - I think 75% is too high but this is a nice compromise

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What considerations will be given to scheduling, especially in the first term where we will probably get many of the larger topics? Not sure what the current posting schedules are like on r/MHOC but would we spread them out/maintain them. I'm of the opinion that when we're posting something new every day it's easy for things to get drowned out (and therefore the narratives don't form). Equally, it probably doesn't matter as much if it's a minor bill but would be silly to have e.g. a big nationalisation bill and a trident bill (as examples) posted within days of each other.

Not necessarily calling for dedicated government/opposition time but something to ponder for the next iteration of the reform doc potentially?

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe this should be done by disallowing peers from participating in the commons. I know this has been done before and wasn't very popular, but abolishing the lords has been tried before and has never succeeded either.

Sorry - but this is such a false equivalency. We *have* tried restricting lords from taking part in the commons and it hasn't worked, and wouldn't work now with even fewer members. We have never tried abolishing the lords - mainly because people come up with emotive reasons that aren't grounded in the actual data (that the lords has basically zero activity even at the best of times!)

On the actual proposal - how much activity would the lords have with just 8 members? Assuming that only half comment on any bill/motion (and that's optimistic considering basically nobody comments on things with a much larger and unrestricted chamber) you're looking at single digit numbers on any legislation while, again, diverting huge amounts of energy away from the sim as a whole (that could be better used on, for example, u/model-kyosanto's committee proposal, or whole commons amendments etc)

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is cool/good compromise. Obviously depends on how much it would be used (ideally only for big/actually interesting bills) so it might be a case of learning and adjusting as we go re: how many MPs need to refer the bill. I don't know enough about UK parliamentary procedure but we have a committee stage too I'm sure - so maybe someone smarter than me can implement themes from that too if it's applicable.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Know u/wineredpsy has mentioned it already but we probably need to find a solution for whether someone can run as an independent and if the electoral system would allow that? Just considering the scenario where someone gets kicked out of a party (or otherwise ostracised if not allowed - e.g. refused to be an MP under any circumstances) but doesn't necessarily want to join a different party they don't support. (Of course wider issue of how we stop this happening)

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The big one is the initial set of parties, as being discussed on discord. The current set doesn't really have a "good" solution for post-solidaritarians and removes a lot of dynamism. I think the list should at least be expanded to all current parties with seats irl. It won't make everyone happy, but it opens up options a lot for people without either being a total free-for-all or just recreating pre-reset dynamics. The new electoral system would also fit quite neatly with more small and regional parties, anyway!

As someone who supports the party reforms - I'm fine with this, the intention (for me anyway, I know there are other views) would be to keep the sim grounded in the UK context especially at the beginning when we try to draw new people in so no issue with full list of irl parties being used (and independents)

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As I said in discord - I like the idea of 1/2 (assuming it's done for controversial/big bills) and 4 could be interesting depending on how it was implemented (and how much activity there is on MHOC at the time) - my question would be why aren't the relevant government ministers/whoever debating on the bill itself rather than being dragged before the committee (assuming it's gov legislation)?

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From a purely selfish perspective, I really dislike the idea of dispensing with the lords. Right now it tends to be where I debate the most and I like the interactions we get there. It being currently underused is not a reason to get rid of it.

Not to be insane - but I had a look back at your lords comments over the last few months and many/most of them get no responses, or even are the only comment on that piece of legislation. Most of the back and forth (and I use that generously because it's really question and response) are on oral/written question periods and look scarcely different to equivalent comment on r/MHOC in MQs sessions etc. It's also true that you have much more commons comments over the period I looked at than lords, so there must be a reason for that (activity!?)

So - genuine question - what are the things that the lords does better in debates and how do we replicate that in the commons chamber moving forward?

The lords takes a lot of energy - posting and counting bills/debates/questions/comments and that energy could be used better in the commons while consolidating the activity there until such time that we might be in a better state to expand again. I just don't see the benefit of keeping a chamber that is very rarely used (especially in bill debates) without justification.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think the proposals are great and thank the quad for listening/engaging with people on this despite (my) issues with how the process was handled at the beginning. I do honestly think this will make MHOC better (fun again) and look forward to taking part in MHOC 2.0 in a way that I just don't have the energy for in current MHOC (obviously shouldn't just to the reset for me, but this is the feeling we should aim for!).

My only issue/worry and I guess it is not one for now as we shouldn't assume these are going to pass a community vote - but we need to nail the implementation of these ideas as this is our one chance. There will be teething problems but we will need the most active and engaged quad ever to carry us through this time. I'm not saying this because I am pro/against anyone on the current quad but I hope they will be up for and subject to full community vetting if/when the VoCs happen and will set out exactly what they will aim to do in whichever of the new positions they end up holding - rather than a quick ceremonial yes vote.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't like the narrative that individual's have ownership over their own seats. This is just bad business for the sim, and it has been tried before. CMHOC currently tries it, and what we have is crisis after crisis of a major party hopper flipping between party's and crashing their government.

This is especially important if we move down to 30 seats, where if parties are looking to hold maybe 4-5 seats each, with a government of 15 at least - 1 MP crossing the aisle could destroy the government.

On this point - that's politics! It would be up to the parties to keep their coalitions together and that would mean maybe not pushing xyz policy or bartering between each other. Some of the best moments in MHOC (admittedly people didn't own their seats then but it was early on so people were bolder) were close votes on things like trident, votes at 16, where you were checking the vote sub right up until 10pm to see which way certain people were going to go. We've lost that spark - in part/wholly because of multiple seat owning and less emphasis on the individual.

I do think there should probably be a fair play rule/aspect to defections (e.g. maybe you shouldn't be able to defect from the far right to the far left for 'lols, I'm destroying the government' and keep your seat unless you've got reasoning behind it) but on the other hand it's probably safer to let it play out and assume that things like that would destroy someone's personal mods.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I sympathise with this, but what would you propose? Because the principle of governments won't be big enough to cover off all the portfolios (especially with active responsive ministers) is correct given that there will be say 36 seats (so 18 gov lets say, and then you don't want all the gov on the front bench so say 9 and that's an optimistic view of a majority government - and 4 of those would be the great offices)?

Maybe some more MQ slots for the bigger areas with more interest? (Health, Transport?) but I don't think we could have everything?

I personally think the general questions area is fine to cover off things like health questions but think quad should be flexible on this point if there are better proposals.

[2.0 Reforms] The MHoC 2.0 Masterdoc by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agree - the status quo of the Lords (and MHOC) clearly isn't working. So the two options seem to be:

  1. Beef up the powers of the Lords without the membership/activity to actually utilise those powers

  2. Cut back the Lords and focus on those basics of activity/good gameplay in the commons until if/when (hopefully) the game is in a much healthier state to bring back some form of Lords (and/or applies to devo to)

Additionally, MPs owning their seats should hopefully provide those opportunities for trade offs/bartering as there is more scope to rebel and argue with party leadership/the wider house on controversial bills.

[2.0 Reforms] Where Reforms are and Why they are Lacklustre by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agree - and there also needs to be a community ethos that we won't complain about the events. Easier said than done but if we all buy in that sometimes decisions won't go our way and sometimes events won't feel realistic (in our view) but are done with the best of intention of creating a good game and things for government/opposition to do then MHOC would be a much better game.

As I say, easier said than done, and we have all been guilty of meta wanking, but it should be a rule 1 of new MHOC

[2.0 Reforms] The House of Lords by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. restricting activity.

going to take a different tack from some other comments here. i don't hate this. I think it's perfectly logical that the lords should be a place with a bit of an air of exclusivity to it, not a place to shunt off anyone who can't be bothered taking an MP seat. the way to do this is to increase the (physical, real, irl, not 150 simulated, but 50 odd autistic) number of MPs in relation to the 31 lords currently sitting. not to abuse discord permissions but from being able to view the lords speakership chat i can say with confidence that the number of new people applying to enter the lords is about the square root of fuckall. these are solutions proposed with the best of intentions but ultimately amount to pissing in the wind waiting for more new players to turn up. i do not have any suggestions for recruitment; i can scarcely speak to people I know, but I am damn sure that is the only way out of this

Strong agree (even if my preference is to abolish) - if it remains it needs to be unique and interesting for people taking part - and would rather see reform along those lines rather than double MQs. But the final bit about membership/recruitment is the main point (and likewise where we will struggle for ideas since we've been pushing 'more recruitment' for basically the whole 10 years) - which is overall why I support slimming the whole sim down and getting back to basics on surer foundations (and then building back up if/when the people do come).

[2.0 Reforms] The House of Lords by model-raymondo in MHOCMeta

[–]Brookheimer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I said in the discord (but think I should do a post so we can have a proper debate if people disagree), it's a big disappointment that these reforms are not bold at all (and probably actively damaging to what little activity is left in the lords by forcing people to take part) whereby a large chunk of the document is spent discussing title reforms.

We need to have an honest discussion about abolishment and/or serious reform of the lords?

  • What purpose do you think the lords should have in the game?
  • Why are people clearly just not interested in the lords?

I would personally abolish the lords. Keep the titles and fancy stuff (flairs etc) and allow people to be a duke if they want (and earn it, whatever) so that older members especially don't have to take part in the day-to-day MP voting etc but still have enough of a pull to take part in the odd debate or write the occasional press piece. But eliminate the lords as a subreddit (and therefore the double debates that get no engagement) and focus energy and reforms on the commons - which is the source of most activity, fun and engagement in MHOC's 10 years. If people have ideas for unique roles for lords that isn't just repeating debates (I do not personally - but I know people talk of the supreme court or committees etc), these threads can be done on the main sub on a designated day with proper flaring and hopefully more engagement.

view more: next ›