[Lord Emares]

I've been having a look at the way the senate elections are run at the moment and they seem very random as to how someone gets and loses a senate seat.

What i would suggest is that the Senate Elections are run a month in advance. At the end of the month the three nations with the most votes become the senators for that color for the following month. The three nations directly below them are recorded as runner ups to the elections.

Should a Senator drop below the requirements for being a senator (including by getting deleted) they are automatically ejected from the senate and replaced by the first Runner up. This is of course providing that the First Runner Up still be within the requirements for running for the senate...if not then it rolls down to the second runner up and so on and so forth)

If there are no runners up who meet the requirements then the highest of the runner up nations takes a missing senators place.


I believe that this would bring more stability to the Team Senates and bring an element of excitement to the Senate races...

Opinions and Questions?

[kswiss2783]

Not a bad idea, but I would like to add a requirement. Nations in peacemode can't run for senator. If they get elected and drop to peace, they lose the senate seat and the 1st runner up gets the seat.

[SynthFG]

Not much point in playing with the senate elections whilst the senate is essentially pointless
Bar the power to sanction a few nations a senate seat provides few powers or privaladges,

Give senators the power to set the levels of certain economic and military bonus's for their team and then there may be a point to playing with the senate elections

[Lord Emares]

kswiss2783, on Feb 17 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Not a bad idea, but I would like to add a requirement. Nations in peacemode can't run for senator. If they get elected and drop to peace, they lose the senate seat and the 1st runner up gets the seat.

Why?

They are still in the top 100 on the team so i don't see why being in peacemode should affect that. Peacemode already has enough penalties attached to it without adding yet more...there are people who use peacemode just to play the game without having to worry about the war side of things you know...

In addition they are still affected by trade sanctions so unless peace mode gave you immunity from team sanctions i would see absolutely no reason to make being in peace mode a reason for not being able to run for the senate.

This post has been edited by Lord Emares: 17 February 2008 - 11:08 AM

[Lord Emares]

SynthFG, on Feb 17 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

Not much point in playing with the senate elections whilst the senate is essentially pointless
Bar the power to sanction a few nations a senate seat provides few powers or privaladges,

Give senators the power to set the levels of certain economic and military bonus's for their team and then there may be a point to playing with the senate elections

Well the sanctions are a good bit of power in and of themselves...as are the team messages...

and i personally think the senate elections need to be fixed and once they are fixed then you should think about giving the senators more power...not the other way around

[BamaBuc]

It's been suggested a million times, but yeah, I agree.

-Bama

[kswiss2783]

Lord Emares, on Feb 17 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

Why?

They are still in the top 100 on the team so i don't see why being in peacemode should affect that. Peacemode already has enough penalties attached to it without adding yet more...there are people who use peacemode just to play the game without having to worry about the war side of things you know...

In addition they are still affected by trade sanctions so unless peace mode gave you immunity from team sanctions i would see absolutely no reason to make being in peace mode a reason for not being able to run for the senate.

Because senators can just sanction with no repercussion.

[Lord Emares]

kswiss2783, on Feb 17 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

Because senators can just sanction with no repercussion.

so how do you propose solving the balance issue that would be brought about by not allowing people in peace mode be a senator yet let them be affected by sanctions?

and people are still able to enact repercussions...by not trading with them...or sanctioning them back...

This post has been edited by Lord Emares: 17 February 2008 - 04:50 PM

[zzzptm]

How about nobody in peace mode votes and nobody in peace mode is eligible to be in the senate.

If you want peace mode, you got it, but you should not be able to influence the affairs of those in war mode.

[BamaBuc]

zzzptm, on Feb 17 2008, 04:51 PM, said:

How about nobody in peace mode votes and nobody in peace mode is eligible to be in the senate.

If you want peace mode, you got it, but you should not be able to influence the affairs of those in war mode.

I like.

-Bama

[Lord Emares]

and about those in peace mode being able to be sanctioned? what happens there?

If they can still be sanctioned then they need to get a vote...if they can still get sanctioned they need some way of countering it

That argument goes both ways

EDIT:

and if people in peacemode can't be sanctioned what happens when someone who is already sanctioned goes into peace mode

This post has been edited by Lord Emares: 17 February 2008 - 05:01 PM

[Bob Janova]

This isn't a thread about sanctions and peace mode, I don't think. (Personally, I think it's fine as it it; the economic penalties of peace mode are going to make you drop out of the top 100 soon enough, particularly if you get sanctioned yourself.)

As for the original suggestion, it would imo make it too difficult to get rid of a troublemaking senator. Because there is no concept of impeachment, if someone decided to go rogue then they could do a lot of damage in a month. If they were in peace mode, or on a colour where nations aren't that strong (i.e. not Green ), it would take a while to knock them out of the top 100.

[kswiss2783]

zzzptm, on Feb 17 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

How about nobody in peace mode votes and nobody in peace mode is eligible to be in the senate.

If you want peace mode, you got it, but you should not be able to influence the affairs of those in war mode.

I support this 100% and to add, if you go into peacemode while a senator, you lose the seat.

[JoshuaR]

zzzptm, on Feb 17 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

How about nobody in peace mode votes and nobody in peace mode is eligible to be in the senate.

If you want peace mode, you got it, but you should not be able to influence the affairs of those in war mode.

There is no reason to completely destroy peacemode. The only bad thing about it was nations taking advantage of it to escape from wars to recover economically, then striking back. That's been fixed. Peacemode hurts your economy. No more harm should be wrought on poor wee peacemode.

Bob Janova, on Feb 17 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

This isn't a thread about sanctions and peace mode, I don't think. (Personally, I think it's fine as it it; the economic penalties of peace mode are going to make you drop out of the top 100 soon enough, particularly if you get sanctioned yourself.)

Indeed, we have just seen Sarafina drop out of the top 100 in black, and GOONS aren't even running a candidate anymore, well as far as I can tell.

[Lord Emares]

Bob Janova, on Feb 17 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

This isn't a thread about sanctions and peace mode, I don't think. (Personally, I think it's fine as it it; the economic penalties of peace mode are going to make you drop out of the top 100 soon enough, particularly if you get sanctioned yourself.)

As for the original suggestion, it would imo make it too difficult to get rid of a troublemaking senator. Because there is no concept of impeachment, if someone decided to go rogue then they could do a lot of damage in a month. If they were in peace mode, or on a colour where nations aren't that strong (i.e. not Green ), it would take a while to knock them out of the top 100.

fair enough...I would like to say as a counter argument to that one thing it would get rid of though is senator rushes...When a small group of people rush in one or more senators before everyone else votes with the sole intention of placing sanctions and causing disruption while never having a realisitic chance of holding the seat for more than a few days. The current system allows this and it is an abuse of the system.

There are still two other Senators who can sanction the troublemaking Senator. And this is only a problem should the Senator be in peacemode...which in the majority of cases they would not be i imagine...

[Bob Janova]

Quote

it would get rid of though is senator rushes

Well, that's what the 30 vote minimum is supposed to be for. Perhaps that should be made (say) 2% of the team's population instead.

[zzzptm]

Bob Janova, on Feb 20 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

Well, that's what the 30 vote minimum is supposed to be for. Perhaps that should be made (say) 2% of the team's population instead.

50 votes or 2%, whichever is greater.