Senate Races

[JoshuaR]

What do you guys think of the current system?

Currently, any nation in the top 100 on a team may choose to disallow senate votes. If they do this, the game grabs the 101st nation on the team and makes them eligible for the senate.

Do you think we should always have 100 senate candidates, or do you think disallowing senate votes should reduce the number of senate candidates?

I'm for the latter. I think only the top 100 nations in a color sphere should be eligible for the senate, and then they may allow or disallow votes. Thus, a single alliance can disallow votes for all but one member. Alliances that don't wish to gain votes (avoiding war with the color powers) can disallow votes, and anyone yet remaining on the list has fewer names competing.

[Choader]

Agreed.

[TheyCallMeJeezy]

the list should shrink

[Drai]

Yeah, I think the list should shrink.

[BastardofGod]

Interesting....I suppose the list should shrink.

[Adolf Von Sippycup]

It doesn't really matter one way or the other for me. But if it were to come up in a vote for Admin to choose I would vote for the list shrinking.

[Emperor Badger]

What about the smaller color spheres, like pink / yellow. 100 nations to them is more than 100 nations to blue / orange. What about say the top 5% of nations are eligible to be elected a senator (just an idea).

[SynthFG]

What about the smaller color spheres, like pink / yellow. 100 nations to them is more than 100 nations to blue / orange. What about say the top 5% of nations are eligible to be elected a senator (just an idea).

No

The only thing going for those spheres is how easy it is to get on the senate list / get elected as a senator

[JoshuaR]

No

The only thing going for those spheres is how easy it is to get on the senate list / get elected as a senator

Indeed, I like that senate eligibility is simply by number, rather than percentage. The fact that pink and yellow have fewer nations means that gaining a senate seat should be easier in such spheres. That should then attract new alliances or alliances who wish to have senate power to those spheres, thus preventing any one sphere from decaying into nothing, as incentive still exists to pull people in.

As for this discussion, I know many were not aware that by disallowing senate votes, they weren't actually reducing the number of eligible candidates, as they had intended. Many would probably not have disallowed votes if they had known they were giving spots to competing parties.

I simply think that keeping only the top 100 eligible is the right way to go about it. Ultimately it's for admin to decide, though if many agree with me, perhaps this is worthy of an actual game change.

(Of course the other argument is the original change in disallowing senate votes was to prevent people voting for you, not to reduce the number of candidates, though I would prefer it does both.)

[kswiss2783]

the list should shrink

Agreed. Top 25

[mitchh]

Agreed. Top 25

Not like that. He means the list should shrink to 100 minus however many people choose not to receive senate votes. I agree.

[deathcat]

I will kindly disagree with this only because on the flip side.. there may well be a great candidate who hasn't grown back into the ranks of senate eligibility or possibly a nation that has the Senate capabilities that we all need in our spheres. I think you should look at as many candidates as possible. The best candidates get picked anyway so I don't see a need to reduce the number of candidates. Just my 2 pesos

oo/ Respectful Dissent

[Igloo]

I'm barely eligible for the Green team senate, because of the Hard-100 rule. However, I agree with the OP's suggestion-- The Senate vote should consist of the top 100 nations in each color sphere, minus those who disallow votes.

[SynthFG]

I will kindly disagree with this only because on the flip side.. there may well be a great candidate who hasn't grown back into the ranks of senate eligibility or possibly a nation that has the Senate capabilities that we all need in our spheres. I think you should look at as many candidates as possible. The best candidates get picked anyway so I don't see a need to reduce the number of candidates. Just my 2 pesos

oo/ Respectful Dissent

Err

All a senator has to do is resist the urge to randomly sanction people

and have the common sense to check on who's requesting sanctions on who before he presses the button

[PlasmoDesmata]

I agree with the OP.

[zzzptm]

Hmmm... if the list shrinks, to top 100 less those that opt out of the senate...

OK, say someone wants to dominate the taupe sphere. (This is a hypothetical so as not to offend any particular sphere...) We'll call this alliance the Taupe Bosses... OK, so they're tough guys and they plan to elect their members to the Taupe senate. They pick three and have the rest of their alliance that's eligible opt out of votes.

THEN they go off and threaten to beat up any nation that doesn't opt out of the running.

>_>

That could lead to WAR.

I like that.

[iMatt]

The op was actually part of the original suggestion, but was not implemented.

Link of proof

I also posted in another thread (can't find it now) that was made just after the addition of senate disabling, requesting and pointing out that the OP of the suggestion mentions not passing down eligibility. The thread got lost in the shuffle, but I hope this one gets some attention for admin to make this quick fix.

[Craven]

I lean towards the ops opinion.

[Reformentia]

Shrink the list.

The main reason people in alliances opt out in the first place is because they want people to vote for someone else in their alliance as a Senator instead of having the votes be diluted. It defeats the purpose of the exercise if, by opting out, you are probably putting another candidate on the voting list who isn't even in your alliance at all.

I was actually unaware that the opt-out resulted in having the next closest to eligible nation become eligible, I had assumed the opt out would function as JoshuaR is suggestion since the alternative makes opting out counterproductive.

[Hassman]

shrink the list!!

[ROMMELHSQ]

good suggestion...I actually thought that was the case

[Archimedes]

I say let there be 100 candidates so powerful nations cannot intimidate nations of smaller Alliances into disallowing and forming an oligarchy. Then the game would stagnate.

Shrinking the list would be anti-competitive.

[Delta1212]

I had thought it was the case as well until a month or so back when I saw the Maroon senate candidates reach down to the 105th nation on the team.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

As for this discussion, I know many were not aware that by disallowing senate votes, they weren't actually reducing the number of eligible candidates, as they had intended. Many would probably not have disallowed votes if they had known they were giving spots to competing parties.

I simply think that keeping only the top 100 eligible is the right way to go about it. Ultimately it's for admin to decide, though if many agree with me, perhaps this is worthy of an actual game change.

(Of course the other argument is the original change in disallowing senate votes was to prevent people voting for you, not to reduce the number of candidates, though I would prefer it does both.)

I would whole heartedly support this.