About referendums

[Elkon77]

Dear fellow players and developers,
I would like to make suggestion about one game mechanic: the referendum and how should that work.
I think that referendums are a bit tricky to use in a realms policy.

For example in a republic or a democracy a referendum can be issued by a person without authority (a citizen) when a certain amount of signatures of other citizens is collected.
In a Theocracy or monarchy for example there is NO referendum, except if a very noble King wants to issue it? In the monarchies the "referendum" used always to be a rebellion, at least that is what history teaches us.

I know that a game mechanic like this is hard and maybe to detailed and minor to be implemented in a game and that would trigger voting if a referendum will pass or not and then voting for that referendum....

But it is crucial to differentiate the executive authority from the freedom of speech.

Thank you in advance for your attention,
Dimitris dimitriadis

[Tom]

Ok, makes logical sense.

One question: What is the problem you are trying to solve?

[egamma]

Ok, makes logical sense.

One question: What is the problem you are trying to solve?

A referendum started by me in Oritolon.

[Chenier]

Though it feels off, usually a simple call of boycott, by any loyalist, is enough to make participation rate so low that it's easy to pass off the result as illegitimate. To add to this effect, you can also vote against the option you dislike, and then publicly pretend you boycotted the referendum and that your option is therefore underrepresented.

[Elkon77]

Dear Tom and egamma,

First of all thank you for your response. Second i would like to tell u egamma i am roleplaying in the game so nothing personal towards you or anything :).

As far as the referendum is concerned it would be rather awkward for the people in a realm having to answer to every question may arise to a nobles head. And that does not concern of course the question that egamma presented which was logic and good structured.
What i mean is that by making the choice of referendums viable even in monarchies is taking the power from the authorities and places it in the hands of every noble. The right to disagree of course is the right of everyone but there is an option for disagreeing and protesting and also a choice for a noble to join a rebellion and try to shake up the government.

What i am saying is that the referendum is the safe card. A noble disagrees, protests or causes unrest rebelling without any consequences, punishments, because what he does is legit, when rebelling and many times protesting is not.

For example in our realm considering of course the roleplaying and assuming theoretically that the character Gerrin wants to shake up things but does not want to be blamed about it (which i think not, but lets consider it) he calls a referendum without consequences for him self (like banning or else) and raises an opposition. As we know, and i know that well, since i have played way back from 2003 till i stopped for some years, an open discussion without the pressure of the election is way better and doesnt divide a realm.  In fact here Gerrin proposes also a law to that matter, which if the referendum succeeds creates a discrepancy between executional power and the power of the nobles. That is why i believe that in republics and democracies a referendum should have as prerequisite the backing up of a certain number of people  (which would make it rather difficult and complicated since all would vote 2 times for a matter but that would be also better since someone would consider 2 times getting in that process) and in other policies there should not be a referendum at all

Sorry if that letter is too long and i thank you in advance for reading it (or not :) )

[Peri]

I can agree with the reasoning behind it, Elkon77, but I believe game mechanics are already somehow enforcing this. Player-driven referenda do not have any influence on the game, only the players can choose how to cope with the results of it.

In a democracy or a Republic if the ruler blatantly ignores the result of a referendum he might very well lose the next election round. In a monarchy or a theocracy, where the ruler is usually not elected, he can simply say "ok interesting to know that the majority of the nobles thinks this, but here is where I decide, and that's not going to happen goodbye".

As they work now, referenda sound to me just like a way to collect a statistics on the nobles' opinion, much similar to a public letter asking for it but with a simpler interface to count the yes and the no.

[vonGenf]

For example in our realm considering of course the roleplaying and assuming theoretically that the character Gerrin wants to shake up things but does not want to be blamed about it (which i think not, but lets consider it) he calls a referendum without consequences for him self (like banning or else) and raises an opposition.

I would note that starting a referendum is in no way an inalienable right. A tyran could very well decide to forbid referenda and ban anyone who starts one. That doesn't mean it's good politics, but it can be done.

[fodder]

only lord or above can start referendum anyway. the only ref that are automatically enforced are gov/lord elections.. everything else is rp based.

personally... i think there should be another option for players to generate referendum that are exactly like auto- elections, apart from the enforcement part.

ie.. instead of everyone automatically being a candidate, nobles have to announce they are running.. within the referendum itself..

both have uses.. eg... if you are asking.. who's the ugliest bastard... then an open list is the way to go. if you are asking... who should be marshal or whatever... then having to actively throw their hats into the ring would be the way.

[egamma]

Dear Tom and egamma,

First of all thank you for your response. Second i would like to tell u egamma i am roleplaying in the game so nothing personal towards you or anything :).

No problem at all, I enjoy making Oriolton a livelier place to play.

As far as the referendum is concerned it would be rather awkward for the people in a realm having to answer to every question may arise to a nobles head. And that does not concern of course the question that egamma presented which was logic and good structured.
What i mean is that by making the choice of referendums viable even in monarchies is taking the power from the authorities and places it in the hands of every noble. The right to disagree of course is the right of everyone but there is an option for disagreeing and protesting and also a choice for a noble to join a rebellion and try to shake up the government.

What i am saying is that the referendum is the safe card. A noble disagrees, protests or causes unrest rebelling without any consequences, punishments, because what he does is legit, when rebelling and many times protesting is not.

For example in our realm considering of course the roleplaying and assuming theoretically that the character Gerrin wants to shake up things but does not want to be blamed about it (which i think not, but lets consider it) he calls a referendum without consequences for him self (like banning or else) and raises an opposition. As we know, and i know that well, since i have played way back from 2003 till i stopped for some years, an open discussion without the pressure of the election is way better and doesnt divide a realm.  In fact here Gerrin proposes also a law to that matter, which if the referendum succeeds creates a discrepancy between executional power and the power of the nobles. That is why i believe that in republics and democracies a referendum should have as prerequisite the backing up of a certain number of people  (which would make it rather difficult and complicated since all would vote 2 times for a matter but that would be also better since someone would consider 2 times getting in that process) and in other policies there should not be a referendum at all

Sorry if that letter is too long and i thank you in advance for reading it (or not :) )

Well, his name is GeLLin, not Gerrin, but that's besides the point.

Full context:

Duke Margrave Spearhead Reapers wanted General Duke Margrave Travis Grayham to either step down as General or step down as Duke/Margrave. There was a 'wiki law', that is not present in the Ruler's Bulletin or the Judges Bulletin, that stated that nobles should not hold multiple positions. This has since been replaced (I just checked) with this:

Previously, there were long-standing conventions limiting the number of titles any one noble or family could accrue to themselves as a result of abuses and tragedies that had befallen Oritolon in the past. These conventions have since fallen out of fashion however as Oritolon has sought to ensure that the best and most committed nobles are no longer dissuaded from taking high office.

Spearhead wants the old law enforced, mostly because Grayham is of a different religion (one that doesn't say "The Path is not a theocratic religion" on its wiki page and temples). Gellin thinks Grayham should be able to maintain his three positions (G/D/M) because he was elected to two of those (G/M) and Reapers himself has two positions (D/M) and the third duke in the realm is Judge/Duke/Margrave.

So, Gellin started a referendum for a new law, that basically said that either Grayham got to keep all his positions, or Reapers and the Judge had to lose all but one of their positions.

Personally, I think it was a clever bit of politicking, but Grayham caved under the pressure and announced that he would step down as General. Gellin will probably resign as Vice-Marshal in protest.

[Ketchum]

About the game mechanic, I agree with Elkon.
Maybe the game mechanic should restrict the Referendum to be start by only Government Council members if they want to gather input. That would very much depend on Government system itself as someone points out. Currently Republic system(e.g. Oritolon) allows for Region Lord to create a Referendum. Is this how a Republic system ideal ways of working, I not too sure as it sounds like every Nobles have right to vote just like Democracy ;D

Last but not least, why we all discussing the Oritolon realm stuff here?
It is nice to see Gellin liven things up, otherwise our realm will be a quiet fading glory realm 8)

[Eldargard]

I have never been a ruler, but my understanding is that they can set all kinds of power level options. Like what positions are elected and which are not. How often the elections occur. things like that. Perhaps the ruler should simply be able to select some options regarding referendums. After all referendums are a key piece of the government like appointments and elections. Something like:

Referendums can be started by:
[] Any noble
[] Landed nobility and council members
[] Council members only
[] Ruler only

*ruler can select ONE of the above options.

[fodder]

those who started the referendum already has the choice of who gets to vote

they can pick whether it's the dukes that do the voting (2 methods), the lords (2 methods), your own nobles (ie.. your own region or your own duchy), or everyone.

[Eldargard]

The option I was referring to is not to determine who can vote in a referendum but who can initiate one.

[egamma]

I have never been a ruler, but my understanding is that they can set all kinds of power level options. Like what positions are elected and which are not. How often the elections occur. things like that. Perhaps the ruler should simply be able to select some options regarding referendums. After all referendums are a key piece of the government like appointments and elections. Something like:

Referendums can be started by:
[] Any noble
[] Landed nobility and council members
[] Council members only
[] Ruler only

*ruler can select ONE of the above options.

Maybe add Dukes to the list, and make it checkboxes instead of ratio buttons.

I think we need a SECOND menu to restrict who the referendum went to. For the referendum I started in Oritolon, a republic, it would make sense to restrict it to "lords only" or "lords only (representative)". Giving the ruler the ability to restrict who the referendum can be sent to would make sense.

[]any noble
[]lords only
[]lords only (representative)
[]dukes only
[]dukes only (representative)

[Indirik]

Why don't you just pass a realm law, and punish anyone who breaks it? They are completely non-binding in any game mechanics fashion. And you can't stop anyone from taking a straw poll anyway.