Speakership Votes of Confidence - October 2024 - Results

Firstly, thank you to the 22 people who took the time to vote in this meta vote - an increase on the last Speakership VoC, which is positive!

I, Sephronar, being the Returning Officer at the above election, do hereby give notice that the number of votes recorded for each Candidate at the said election is as follows:

u/model-jordology (Labour)

Yes - 7 (31.82%)

No - 10 (45.45%)

Abstain - 5 (22.73%)

Failing to pass the 50%+1 threshold, u/model-jordology is not elected to the position of Deputy Commons Speaker.

u/DriftersBuddy (Conservative)

Yes - 10 (45.45%)

No - 9 (40.91%)

Abstain - 3 (13.64%)

Therefore, having passed the 50%+1 threshold, u/DriftersBuddy is duly elected to the position of Deputy Commons Speaker.

Thank you to both Jordology and DB for putting themselves forward - I am pleased to at least have one new member of the team, but respect the community's wishes that it not be two new members. For the time being we will get by with one new member of the team, but if need be I may put the call out for another one or two in due course.

Being a Deputy Commons Speaker is a hugely important role. As a DCS you literally help to keep the sim running, posting business regularly and on time is no small feat, and just putting yourself forward for the role is to be congratulated. I hope that the next time I put a call out for more DCS' we have more than just two applications, as was the case on this occasion.

Speakership Votes of Confidence - October 2024

Good afternoon,

I asked for self-nominations for two new Deputy Commons Speakership to fill the gap from recent leavers.

We had just two people apply so I am proposing both of them to go to a Vote of Confidence of the community.

The lucky two are:

• u/model-jordology
• u/DriftersBuddy

Please do vote! It's important community decisions like this are voted on by the community.

Please click here to vote!

Verify your vote in the comments below - this vote shall end at 3pm GMT on Wednesday the 30th of October.

WITHDRAWN

Hi MHoC,

As many of you are aware, I seek to implement a “productivity commission” in MHoC and I wish to lead it as Productivity Commissioner.

For those of you who aren’t aware of what I’m talking about, here’s the proposal I sent in main in discord:

CANON: The Productivity Commission (PC) will provide research and advice to the Government on economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of British citizens. The PC will provide advice to the Government of the day on the proposed legislation (bills and draft bills), and their relevance and suitability to British society. It will be led by the Productivity Commissioner.

META: The PC will be the source of statistics and other data for players in MHOC. With approval of the Quadrumvirate, the Productivity Commissioner will release data to players that they can use in game to shape their bills, policies, and the way they play the game altogether. A player can request data at any time.

For example, a player might ask the PC “What is the crime rate in London?”. The Productivity Commissioner would then conduct research of laws passed by MHOC, government policies in MHOC, IRL stats, and any other items that are deemed relevant. After considering all of those factors, the PC would make a determination on what the crime rate in MHOC Canon would be.

This would then be approved by the Quadrumvirate, and the Productivity Commissioner would then release the crime rate.

For release of data, a statement in r/MHOCPress would be released, and, if approval is given, a new MHoC Server would be created for the PC to release data in. This server would also be used as the place to submit requests for data, and would serve as a primary operations centre for the PC.

—

Let’s start with a correction. If this proposal is approved and implemented, I will not be dealing with economic or financial stats. That’s not something that this will concern and it will make this task far too difficult as I get this off the ground. But there will be room to do finance and economics later.

Now, onto a comment Mister Susan had, that my proposal “would be best as a “newspaper editor or something”.

First of all, that is basically what the canon part of the proposal I have put above is. It provides advice and recommendation on laws and policies in mhoc through media releases, etc. This was my original proposal I gave to Ina when I came up with this idea. But I wanted to go bigger, because I had high hopes for this.

On the comments that argue that this proposal would simply “mean more incentives for people to play” are created, I also disagree. I genuinely think this proposal, if implemented, would spark the interest of old players or those interested in politics and in considering playing the game, because they’re able to actually access figures previously not as readily available, and they can shape the way they play around that.

I am unsure if MHoC made covid canon, but in my old home, AustraliaSim, they did, and from what I have heard it was very difficult and frustrating bc the stats being used in game were from real life, that were based on actions taken in the real world, not in AusSim canon. Now imagine the engagement that AustraliaSim would have had if the stats they had were influenced by the decisions the AustraliaSim government made, and not dictated by real life decisions which the canon government did not make.

Canonized stats for players based on canon actions, if implemented, will increase the quality and activity in debates. I am certain of that. Because people will actually have more stuff to argue about. People will have stats that they can use to shape the way they play MHoC, and this means policies will be more relevant to MHoC and will mean canon doesn’t stay the same forever.

Mili said that “I just also think it would be an awful lot of work for relatively little gain?”

Well, when you think about this, there are only big gains to be made here.

Imagine, if this proposal was put forward. Let’s say at the election Labour focussed solely on a policy to reduce crime and passed a law to enable that policy. I would be able to do extensive research on the law and similar laws irl, among other things, and would be able to create an estimated impact of that law based on research. If the impacts were positive and crime went down, well, Labour can’t really continue to focus on a policy of fixing crime, can they?

It’s things like this, the small ripples in canon, that I believe can create waves. Because such intricate changes in how canon operates will make MHoC more appealing to newcomers. Because their actions in the game will actually have impacts, rather than just a mod boost or drop. They can actually shape the Model United Kingdom the way they want in a Model Parliament and Government. Isn’t that what we’re all about?

I could actually argue the fact that modifier changes are currently the only significant impact to players in game, is actually the reason MHoC has become such a gamified community, where mod-chasing behaviour is rife.

People are scared this proposal will take people away from canon. It won’t. I want to lead the productivity commission by myself, at least for now. Because I know we have an activity problem, and I don’t want to take any active people away from canon. We need them there. In the future, when activity picks back up, sure, let's make the productivity commission a team of people. But for now I think it’s best that I just do this.

From the discussions I’ve had this would probably sit under the events quad (akko), but I am aware our timezones are different and akko isn’t always online so I would so be open to making this independent of events and transferring all determination of stats to me, or whatever way people suggest we do this.

Now, onto accountability.

I am aware that people are unwilling to criticise the quad too much, I hear that.

I am happy to take out the part of my proposal that requires all stats I come up with to get quad approval if people want to hold someone (me) fully accountable with no repercussions, but I feel this risks the stats being more unrealistic and unrelated to MHoC canon. I do want the quad approval part to stay in light of that.

I am also happy to make a process where people can dispute and appeal released stats and can ask for information on what research was used to make the determination.

Now, onto the questions I received on this proposal:

How would the workload be managed?

Quite well. Initially, I would aim for a 2-3 day return period for all requests. Depending on the workload I get, this could change. I do work full time, and would be doing this in my free time, but I will make sure the work gets done by creating a spreadsheet that can track progress of requests and creates an estimated return time for each request. I am very good at managing task irl in my work and when I was in high school and I can continue that here.

The process of generating this data (i.e will it just be literally made up, how much research would be done, etc):

Well, let’s start by making it clear the data I would release would not be made up. As said in my proposal from main, which provided an example of determining the MHoC canon crime rate for London. The Productivity Commissioner (me) would conduct research of laws passed by MHOC, government policies in MHOC, IRL stats, and any other items that are deemed relevant. After considering all of those factors, the PC would make a determination on what the crime rate in MHOC Canon London would be.

The research that I would undertake would be extensive. I wouldn’t just take an hour or two for each proposal, I’d take at least one evening of free time for each proposal, depending on the amount of data available, I may take less time if there is less research available. It depends on each request.

If you have any further questions or want to discuss this further, please put them in the comments below.

EDIT:

2:34pm GMT+1: Contrary to the way I’ve wrote this, I just want to clarify I wouldn't be immediately confirmed as the Productivity Commissioner if this proposal were to go ahead, the position would be opened up to the community and that the winning candidate would have a small team to help alleviate any pressure issues, which I discussed in the proposal post. Thanks to ARTB for clarifying in the comments and reminding me to add it here too. ☺️

All very good questions though and I am pleased with how positively you are engaging with the proposal.

EDIT:

11:14pm GMT+1: I am withdrawing the proposal.

Dear MHoC Member,

Taking into account the feedback you have given so far on the mini review meta thread, and of course in the various discord servers too, one thing that seems to be an issue currently is the frequency of business being far too much for most people. It seems regular that a third of MPs aren't voting, and even more than that aren't debating either - so we're going to respond to your feedback to try to change that.

So, with that in mind, I have discussed the issue with the rest of Quad and with the Commons Speakership team, and we are making the following changes in an attempt to improve things:

• Business - both Readings and Divisions will now be open for 5 days instead of the current 3. We hope that this will allow a longer timeframe for debating and voting.

• Business days - Days will be kept as they currently are on the sheet, but Bills will only go to 2nd Reading every other business day, meaning that there will only be 2 new Bills introduced each week (Week1: Monday and Friday / Week 2: Tuesday and Saturday)

• We will be removing 2nd Reading Divisions and Report Stages entirely. That means the process will be as it has been historically: 2nd Reading > Amendment Division > 3rd Reading > Final Division. We will however encourage and allow debate under amendments submitted under the 2nd Reading automod 'amendment comment' (where you submit your amendments.) Motions will still have their amendment readings and amendment divisions, and the Motion timetable as it currently is remains unaffected.

• Any 'important' extraordinary business such as MoNCs, VoNCs, Opposition Day debates, certain gov motions, business relating to treaties, and the Budget will be allocated business space on an adhoc basic according to need.

These changes will come into effect from Monday 21st October, so that speakership can carry out the current week as normal, and we can get any current business mostly out of the way. All currently posted business with the previous system will continue along the process as it was - so if there are report stages and third readings posted in the next week, they will carry on through the process as previously. I expect we shall be transitioned entirely onto the above system within two weeks, with all new submitted Bills from today being posted according to the above.

Thank you for your feedback to the mini-review so far, there is still time so please comment on that if you haven't already, and if you have any specific thoughts on the above please do let me know.

Hello everyone. The 2.0 system has been in place for over 100 days now, and we have seen a huge increase in activity that then cratered into pre-2.0 levels. There have been growing pains and systems that have not worked well, and so it’s time to have a discussion on it properly.

Activity Reviews:

As hinted at in Ina's metapost, Quad have decided to pause activity reviews. We agree with Ina’s suggestion of having one activity review per term, so there is less immediate pressure on parties to manage their own MPs. We want MHoC to be player driven, and adding so much responsibility onto party leadership to micromanage turnout isn’t compatible with this. That said, polling penalties from low turnout should be increased as a result of this change, so that MP turnout is still a tangible metric that affects the game.

Electoral System:

The consultation is technically still open, though going by the feedback to the post it seems that the system Ka4bi created is quite popular. Quad are leaning towards FPTP, and agree with what Mili has written on the changes needed. As such, we would like to implement what has been put in the post, if that is something the community agrees with.

These changes will come into effect for the next election.

Honours System:

The current honours system - a point based tier-system - is not fun and is a bit stupid. Therefore I want us to go back to the previous system with a few caveats. An outgoing Prime Minister/member of Quad will only be granted three honours to hand out, and this will be retroactive (so Willem and Muffin will be able to grant three honours each if they wish). These honours will be hierarchical and a player will need to go up the hierarchy - no more jumping straight to the Order of the Bath without so much as an MBE. There will also be the opportunity to grant two or three “side honours”. These would be for press personas or real life figures that the outgoing Prime Minister would like to grant an honour to.

Post-Election Duration:

The thing we learned from the first post-election period is that it was far, far too long. We want to shorten the duration of both the coalition forming period and the King’s Speech drafting period so that we can all get on with the game. As such, we want to make the coalition period four days, and the King’s Speech drafting period three days. We realise this is a drastic change, so we also want to implement a 2,000 word limit on the King’s Speech.

This will require parties to change up the dynamic of how they negotiate coalitions. I do strongly believe that this will create new and dynamic ways for the governments to evolve overtime to meet new issues and struggles, both within the government itself and through the opposition.

Marketing Strategy

The marketing strategy got very little feedback which was a little disappointing, but the main feedback comment was comprehensive - thanks Mr Susan! That said, I want to address some things here:

• MHoC is a Reddit sim, yes, but the community is a large part of that and it is very difficult to build a comprehensive community such as what we currently have purely on MHoC. As such, I think diminishing the Discord’s importance would be a mistake.
• The clutter that needs sorting is annoying! But, we don’t actually have a comprehensive list of what needs updating. As such, if people could ping myself or another member of quad to make us aware of any clutter we can then get a list going to keep on top of. This could easily be incorporated into the Speakers archiving responsibilities.

I want to hear more thoughts on the marketing strategy, as currently I don’t feel confident launching such a huge project with actual cost without more community oversight.

Small Things:

The constitution is actually underway! I have started writing it based on the original constitution, however I am attempting to keep it in plain English so it isn’t so law-wankery and is more accessible. I have also started updating the New Members Guide, though this has been on hold for a while now - I will be getting back into it once the changes from this review come into effect. If there’s any other smaller things that I have missed, please do let me know.

Acting Electoral Commissioner:

As posted earlier, Mili has officially stepped down as Electoral Commissioner. I want to thank him for the extremely hard work he has done over the past couple of months. He has enabled us to have a much stronger foundation for polling, and has paved the way for comprehensive electoral reform. We are in a stronger position thanks to him.

Legs will be taking on the role of Acting Electoral Commissioner in full - including full quad access and impartiality - until after the general election.

Activity in General:

We want as much feedback as we can get - why has activity cratered so much? There’s a lot of pressure on a small group of individuals to maintain activity, compared to the large player base we have. What can quad do to encourage activity, and broaden the active player base? One idea Mili has had is establishing a Model Civil Service - a group of volunteers (who wouldn’t have to be impartial) that would assist in writing legislation. I feel like having a group of legislation mentors would be ideal in helping new members get used to writing their own, whilst limiting the barrier to entry - legislation writing can be daunting!

We want to ensure MHoC is fun for all involved, and we have lost sight of this goal recently. We need feedback, especially with what feels to me an increasingly growing gap between the player base and the quad. Sometimes there’s a disconnect between quad and how the game works in reality, so feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.

Good Evening.

I don't think anyone is of the view that the state of MHOC is any good right now, but one issue in particular is really making me worried about the immediate-term viability of the simulation: that is next weeks activity review. I will be very blunt here: I think allowing the activity review to go ahead as planned has the potential to kill the simulation outright.

Under the activity review, every MP with a turnout below 75% will be immediately (and without any ability to recourse) be removed from benches. Whilst just two MPs are currently basically guaranteed to be removed, we are in the utterly absurd situation in which twelve MPs -- a third of the house! -- are at risk (which I define as turnout slipping below <75% upon failing to vote in two division cycles, or five divisions as of right now).

These MPs include one labour MP (one is struggling but is currently immune based on being acting quadrumvirate), one alliance MP, two green MP, six conservative MPs and two reform MPs. In particular, this includes all MPs from three of MHOC's main parties: Conservatives, Greens and Reform. Seeing the less than consistent turnout records more recently, I would not be surprised if half of the MPs genuinely do end up getting removed from the game, realistically leaving these seats vacant until the general election.

Of course, scrapping the activity review is just a temporary measure: but it is one that will, at least, avoid irreparable and possibly fatal damage from being done to the sim whilst we try to figure out how to make things more manageable.

Longer-term, we need to look at whipping in MHOC and the amount of divisions in particular. Because the way it's set up right now is, I feel, the worst possible way to be dealing with divisions the game could have. It doesn't enable the routine-building that the old system did. I, as chief whip, would update the spreadsheet and send out reminders at pretty regular intervals, and did so for years but I started to struggle as divisions became less consistent in later MHOC 1.0 and do so even more now, temporarily taking on the duties of my CW as they're quite busy right now. What we have right now is regular dumps of a number of divisions (usually two to three) but I would argue that this is much harder on whips than a daily trickle of a division each day.

Hell, I would even be happy with a massive dump of divisions once a week, with voting lasting the whole week. Anything other than what we have currently.

I would also suggest that we move to a model where we have one AR per term, set roughly one month after the KS, and one set of by-elections per term. If this term had gone more to plan, we would have had three sets of by-elections and I really need to stress that by-elections are rough on leadership as is, especially when you have to juggle multiple candidates in a pretty short time period like we had to do right now. For leaderships which are already overworked, this is a true pain (especially as it is work than comes on top of everything else that needs to be done in the first place!)

I do not anticipate that these changes would immediately fix MHOC, or anything even close, but it would take some immediately pressure off the sim and help make things less stressful, especially as it is definitely more stressful than it needs to be right now.

For continued toxic behaviour in the Commons and a complete refusal to learning from the previous ban u/PapaSweetshare has been permanently banned from the Model House of Commons and all related Discord Servers and Subreddits.

Appeals should be sent via modmail to r/MHOCQuad.

Hello everyone. As promised for a few months now, the official marketing strategy for MHoC is finally out!

Building up a Network:

The strongest aspect of MHoC is, and always will be, its community. As such, consider this a call to action! There are without a doubt countless members who are also part of other communities, with lots of overlap in hobbies and interest. As such, we want to create a network of similar communities. If you are part of a community that you think would be a good partner for MHoC please DM me on Discord at elraymondo and I’ll get the rest sorted, mainly outreach. Some examples for the sort of communities would be worldbuilding, writing (including journalism), political games, that sort of thing.

The aim of this particular aspect of the strategy isn’t to gain lots of new members but to build up a network to fall back to when we need to make that push. It’s my hope that this can be a long lasting tool for the community to have in their back pocket.

Contacting University Societies:

Throughout the history of this community the most active and productive members have often been university students. Despite many of them either leaving for greener pastures or graduating, we can still utilise this to our advantage. Already we have had members join from being introduced to MHoC by friends at uni, and I want us to continue this tradition. As such, I want us to contact university politics societies to get a push out for MHoC. I do worry that this will generate a buzz at the start and quickly diminish in effectiveness, but for a short term strategy I think it will bring in enthusiastic new members.

The Tri-Yearly Marketing Push:

This is the big ticket item in the marketing strategy, to bring in a regular influx of new members. Utilising the built-in marketing system on Reddit, we will advertise MHoC on the platform three times a year. My current thinking would be for seven days half way through a term, so that new members have enough time to get settled and become used to MHoC, as well as enough time to build up personal modifiers to help them in the election.

This doesn’t come without cost, however, and would also require a stream of donations to keep it going. The current estimates would be around 50,000 impressions on a week-long campaign, costing around £10 a day - with the possibility of it going over by 20% in terms of cost. For the first campaign, as a trial, I would be happy to cover most if not all of the cost.

I believe this is our best shot at regular, sustainable marketing for the Model House of Commons that can be undertaken not just by myself, but future Headmods as well. Having a regular push would mean a sustainable influx of new members, assuming all goes well with the trial. This would however require new infrastructure, such as a buffed up New Members Guide that reflects the modern Model House of Commons.

How to Sustainably Fund the Marketing Push:

Should advertising on Reddit be an effective way to expand our user base then a more sustainable way of managing the cost of the advertisements. As such, I propose to create a donation platform for MHoC to get a small stream of money to budget with. The goal would be to raise roughly enough to fund in the very least the lowest budget possible (£5, plus 20%). This would be managed by the Headmod, with oversight from the rest of the quad and ideally (though I don’t think it’s completely necessary, but still good to have) from the Guardians. It would also have additional oversight from the rest of the community in the form of public tracking of donations, though in my opinion who donated should be kept anonymous. This is a very barebones addition to the strategy for now, as it is my intention to test out the effectiveness of the Reddit Advertisements first.

Keeping New Members Engaged:

This one is the final call to action for you all. When we get a new member, parties need to be working hard at keeping them engaged. This means creating systems within your own parties to encourage and help new members - be it a buddy system or just generally creating an atmosphere within your parties of help and community. If a member joins and discovers a sterile environment where questions go unanswered then they absolutely will not stay. Quad will, of course, keep on welcoming new people we see so it isn't just on everyone else, but whilst we focus on bigger picture strategies we’ll need as much help as we can get! Here’s a few suggestions:

• Foster a friendly environment within your parties; easier said than done, I know, but make your Discords places people want to hang out in.
• Create a buddy system; people occasionally mention their “MHoC mentors” in conversation, why not create a more formal system for that? Intraparty may work even better.

Good evening everyone.

Thank you to everyone who voted. The results are as follows.

Do you have confidence in /u/model-legs as Deputy Electoral Commissioner?

Aye - 12

No - 2

Abstain - 3

Are you going to verify in the comments?

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD - 14

Yes - 3

As such, /u/model-legs is confirmed as Deputy Electoral Commissioner and the hypnotoad is very disappointed in 3 of you.

Hey everyone,

I want to thank everyone who took the time to apply, all applicants would have made a fantastic choice and I heavily encourage all of you to apply for any opportunities that may arise in the future (including some new roles that may be created soon).

I have selected /u/model-legs to be my Deputy Electoral Commissioner, who I believe to be a fantastic choice for the role.

Please click here to vote.

This vote will close at 5pm (UK time) on Sunday 15th of September.

Speakership Votes of Confidence - Results

Thank you to the 17 people who took the time to vote.

All 17 votes were counted and verified correctly. As a reminder, the nominees were:

• u/model-kurimizumi for CWM
• u/model-av for DCS

The results were as follows:

• u/model-kurimizumi for CWM

Aye - 15 (88.24%)
No - 1 (5.88%)
Abstain - 1 (5.88%)

• u/model-av for DCS

Aye - 15 (88.24%)
No - 1 (5.88%)
Abstain - 1 (5.88%)

Congratulations to you both, the Quad and I are very much looking forward to working with you over the coming months!

11.09.2024 Speakership Votes of Confidence

So as you will know, u/Lily-irl has decided to take a break from MHoC and from Speakership in general.

As such, I opened applications for Lily's replacement, was very fortunate to receive a good number of applications, and out of them I have opted to propose u/model-av as the replacement Deputy Commons Speaker.

At the same time, I would also like to propose that we move u/model-kurimizumi to Chair of Ways and Means given their hard work so far this term - I believe that this change would give them the proper authority to serve as my 'number 2' where necessary!

Please click here to vote!

This vote will be open for 48 hours until 5PM BST on Friday 13th of September 2024. Don't forget to verify your vote below or it won't be counted!

Good evening everyone! The Events Lead election had 26 votes, and the results are as follows:

Of the 26 votes cast, 26 were successfully verified. The threshold required is 14.

Round 1:

u/ARichTeaBiscuit: 13 preference votes.

u/model-legs: 8 preference votes.

RON: 5 first preference votes.

u/model-legs is eliminated. Commiserations, you had a great manifesto!

Round 2:

u/ARichTeaBiscuit: 18 preference votes. (+5)

RON: 8 preference votes (+3)

u/ARichTeaBiscuit has surpassed the threshold and is duly elected as Events Lead, joining the Quad. Congratulations, I look forward to working with you!

Good morning everyone. This vote shall end on the 3rd of September at 10pm.

The link to the form can be found here.

Link to the Q&A thread, which will remain open until the vote ends.

Don't forget to verify.

The deadline has passed and we have two great candidates for Events Lead! They are as follows:

u/ARichTeaBiscuit | Manifesto

u/model-legs | Manifesto

Please read through and ask as many relevant questions as possible! The Events Lead being new means there's a lot of questions to be asked and answers to be given.

Timeline Reminder:

Now - Q&A thread is posted

10pm BST 30th August- voting opens, Q&A remains open.

10pm BST 3rd September - voting closes, results will be announced shortly thereafter.

Good evening everyone. Following the resignation of u/Muffin5136 as the Events Lead it is time for a quad election! I would first like to thank Muffin for his hard work and dedication to the role of both Devolved Speaker and later Events Lead.

In order to run, candidates must submit a manifesto to me before the deadline of 10pm BST on the 26th of August.

All candidates must be permitted to run by me. For the vast majority of sim members, this won't be an issue. If you want to double check, drop me a message on Discord @ elraymondo.

All candidates must be 18 or older.

Since the Events Lead is a brand new position in Quad, here are the remits that it is responsible for:

• Responsible for managing the events team
• Responsible for producing events, both player-driven and reactive
• Responsible for press polling

Good luck to everyone standing!

The timeline is as follows:

Now - the nomination period opens.

10pm BST 26th August - nomination and manifesto deadline, Q&A thread shall be posted.

10pm BST 30th August- voting opens, Q&A remains open.

10pm BST 3rd September - voting closes, results will be announced shortly thereafter.

Evening all,

As you can see by the title of this fine MHoCMeta post, I am hereby resigning from my position as Events Lead within the quadrumvirate. I did not expect to be resigning from this position, and it is with sadness that I do, but I recognise it is in the best interests of MHoC that I do. I simply do not have the time or energy for MHoC that I once did, having served in all manner of canon and now meta positions.

It has been a pleasure to serve first as Devolved Speaker and then as Events Lead through the revamp of MHoC into the current 2.0 system, and I have had great pleasure in playing a role in bringing about these wholesale changes.

I recognise that I have unfortunately left the Events side of MHoC in a difficult position, but I hope that with enough time left in the term that my successor is able to have a great time to set-up, and continue my vision of developing dynamic events for MHoC that build the game into something that is across a broad spectrum than just legislation passing. I will be glad to watch whatever flourishes from this.

I would like to give a great thanks for having been able to serve alongside Ray, Seph and Willem, in bringing about MHoC 2.0 and am sure that Ray and Seph will do a great job alongside Mili in continuing the change we started.

It is with a heavy heart that I have resigned, but I wish to thank the community for twice having faith in me to serve, and it has been a true pleasure to serve.

Good afternoon MHoC,

Since the election, our current D’Hondt system has been subject to frequent (and sometimes intense) discussions. Unfortunately, many of these debates were had across a broad range of channels over many different days; this made establishing a consensus on necessary reforms difficult.

With this consultation, that consensus is precisely what I hope to establish. This thread will be an open forum where the community can suggest or debate any proposed changes to our electoral system. These reforms could range from as minor as adjustments to post requirements or as major as instituting an entirely new electoral system.

From this, I will create a set of proposal(s) to go to community approval and then implementation in the very near future. Time is of the absolute essence in 2.0, and the next election is not that far away.

To allow for an informed discussion that everyone can participate in, attached below are a few proposals made on /r/MHOCMeta & some other relevant items that could act as a starting point. For clarity’s sake, the consultation is not limited to discussing these ideas.

Electoral systems:

FPTP + AMS top-up (MHoC 1.0 electoral system)

Imperiali & “Reverse AMS” (More extreme apportionment)

FPTP + Personal modifier-based top-ups

/u/Zanytheus' proposal (inc. Ranked Choice Voting/Alternative Vote)

Constituency maps:

/u/Zanytheus’ constituency proposal (map drawn by /u/mrsusandothechoosin)

MHOC 1.0 constituency map

Misc. proposals:

Abolition of specific national post requirements

Introduction of ‘Event response’ posts, not included in standard post limit

Increasing manifesto word count

‘Debate only’ days at the start/end of campaigning

Return of manifesto threads

49 seat parliament/35 seat FPTP

Some takes

I would prefer a system like /u/ka4bi’s proposal of FPTP + personal modifier-based top-ups.

I believe it would work well at minimising some clear downsides of FPTP, such as avoiding forcing one of two hyper-active players to lose out in a race or punishing running in regions with high activity relative to population such as devo regions. Alongside this, I think the explicit integration of personal modifiers into seat distribution is an excellent way to directly reward & encourage consistent in-sim activity.

Flumsy articulated the main dichotomy in election design well: the choice is ultimately between focusing on accurately reflecting the term’s inputs or drama/strategy via volatility. I believe /u/ka4bi’s system is a good compromise in both providing election strategy while rewarding and encouraging in-sim activity.

I’ve seen the points raised by minor party leaders about the national posts, and I agree that 10 posts for what is likely to be one or two people is an absurd amount of work to expect. I’ve yet to finalise how I will tackle this, but please be assured I am aware and am working on it.

Concerns were also raised over the confusion on how to approach the new electoral system. Whatever system is in place next election, clear guidance will be given to ensure there are no miscommunications.

Abolition of specific national post requirements

I see no problem with this, it appears unnecessarily restrictive to me. If a party wants to use their posts in similar ways outlined in the requirements, they’re free to do so, but I see no benefit in forcing those who aren’t interested to do it. I’m a bit more sympathetic to the idea of a manifesto launch requirement, but parties generally do that anyway (as you should).

Introduction of ‘Event response’ posts, not included in standard post limit

Liking the idea in concept. I am slightly unsure how many we would allow (1 seems too little, 3 has doubled your post limit) but regardless would want to allow for flexibility in responding to events without needing people to hold back posts.

Increasing manifesto word count

Absolutely fine with this. I’d look at moving to a 6500 word cap or so, potentially moving to 1.0’s 8000 word cap if the demand was there. Wary of the fact caps create expectations and people may assume longer = better (despite the Quad emphasising otherwise every election) so don’t want to set it ridiculously high but want to allow parties to have breathing room to express their vision.

‘Debate only’ days at the start/end of campaigning

I’ve always felt debates were a bit of a side-show to the purely campaigning side of MHOC. It seemed a massive shame since I usually found them a lot more interesting than reposting various Canva templates. Days dedicated to debate could be a great way to encourage this, and I’d want to look at doing something like it next election. My main concern would be around extending what is already a long election.

Return of manifesto threads

#BringBackManifestoThreads

I'm not going to set a definitive end date to this consultation to allow for conversation to flow as long as it needs to, but ideally we would have the proposals finalised and being voted on by the end of next week at the very latest (around the 25th). The 2.0-discussion channel will also be repurposed to serve as the hub for reform discussions on the main server.

Any concerns, questions or things that I've missed - please feel free to contact me here or on Discord (model_mili).

Good evening,

There were 45 votes submitted on the Vote of Confidence in the Events Team. 44 of the votes were verified with 1 vote thrown out for not verifying, with a simple majority of Yes vs No votes required to pass, the results are as follows:

Do you have confidence in u/model-legs to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 32

No: 7

Abstain: 5

I can therefore certify that u/model-legs has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

Do you have confidence in u/rickall123 to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 37 

No: 3 

Abstain: 4

I can therefore certify that u/rickall123 has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

Do you have confidence in u/weebru_m to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 33

No: 7 

Abstain: 4

I can therefore certify that u/weebru_m has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

Do you have confidence in u/comped to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 21

No: 18

Abstain: 5

I can therefore certify that u/comped has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

Do you have confidence in u/AdSea260 to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 22

No: 16

Abstain: 6

I can therefore certify that u/AdSea260 has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

Do you have confidence in u/Waffel-lol to be on the Events Team?

Yes: 39

No: 2

Abstain: 2

I can therefore certify that u/waffel-lol has passed their vote of confidence and will be on the Events Team.

I thank everyone for voting and congratulate all for passing their votes and look forward to the term ahead.

Good evening everyone! The first quad election of the 2.0 system has finished and we're off to a great start with 52 votes! The results are as follows:

Of the 52 votes cast, 52 were successfully verified. The threshold required is 27.

Round 1:

u/model-mili: 38 first preference votes.

u/youmaton: 11 first preference votes.

RON: 3 first preference votes.

u/model-mili has met the threshold and is therefore elected as the Electoral Commissioner of the Model House of Commons! Commiserations to Youma, who ran a fantastic campaign and had a great manifesto.

For toxic behaviour in the Commons u/PapaSweetshare has been banned from the Model House of Commons and all related Discord Servers and Subreddits for one month. Mental health should not be trivialised or used as an attack point in a debate.

Appeals should be sent via modmail to r/MHOCQuad.

Good morning everyone. Apologies for the delay in the vote. Because of the delay, this vote shall now end on the 10th of August at 10pm.

The link to the form can be found here.

Link to the Q&A thread, which will remain open until the vote ends.

Don't forget to verify.

Thank you all for your patience, but I am pleased to announce that there has been an Events Team selected following the call for applicants last week.

I am pleased to confirm that 6 people will form the first Events Team of MHoC 2.0, who are below:

• model-legs
• rickall123
• weebru_m
• comped
• Adsea260 (Oracle)
• Waffel-lol

The vote may be found here and shall last for a period of 3 days - will close at 10pm on Thursday. I will get the result out for people by Friday evening.

The members of the team shall require a simple majority (50%) to pass.

Dearest everyone,

I hope you are having a lovely calm Monday.

I am pleased to unveil a project we have been working on - and thank you to the Quad and Commons Speakership team for their help - codifying some of the recent changes and precedents into one amazingly beautiful document.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND OTHERS, I GIVE YOU - THE MHOC 2.0 STANDING ORDERS AND PRECEDENT LOG!

The great thing is this is a living document so if something is missed, or if something needs reviewing and changing, then we can!

Here is the google doc that may change over time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gjxZcbIKWm80k0e_i_qQyDPNZoQs4XBuaqaDgHkYY3E/edit?usp=sharing

Here is a static PDF version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JDm9aE_CpHgnEY-4nqac08ZMBVZ7Oq77/view?usp=sharing

AND ANNOUNCING ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS - SEE SECTION EIGHT FOR MORE INFO!

Love Seph xoxo

For toxic behaviour in the Commons and on the Discord u/TWLv2 has been banned from the Model House of Commons and all related Discord Servers and Subreddits for one month.

Appeals should be sent via modmail to r/MHOCQuad.

One more meta post from me before the term begins...

I've put hot take on this because I don't know if I necessarily agree with it or thought about the ramifications of if we did this, but wanted to put it out there before the term begins so I don't look like a moany sod down the line. Maybe something to discuss more at the 6 month review?

The aim of the game (broadly) is to do well enough and work across parties to get your legislation passed and "impact" Britain in game. This comes via debating, voting and legislating. At the moment (I think - haven't seen the new system) you get positive modifiers for writing legislation and I assume submitting amendments. This in my opinion runs counter to the new system of narratives/good debate having a greater effect than in MHOC 1.0.

To me, the "reward" from legislation should be that it passes and you "win" the game on that front. However, with mods for submitting, the legislation could be really poor or poorly debated and still gain a boost for you/your party which makes it very hard for an opposition to gain from a government bill (or vice versa) - especially as there are now more slots given to governments legislation wise I worry this will cement the government of the days lead in the polls.

While we wouldn't want it to be predetermined, governments should be swingy otherwise we will end up in the same ones forming and ultimately stagnation, so while we shouldn't harm governments just for existing there definitely shouldn't be bonuses just for remaining in government (like bonus legislation slots and therefore modifiers). Instead, you should be incentivised to "spend" you winnings in government enacting your legislation as your victory.

Of course, then if we removed modifiers just for submitting it incentivises the submitting party to properly debate the bill to ensure they have secured the "narrative" on it and this cumulative effect would then secure your boost for writing it. Likewise if it was argued against strongly, you wouldn't be fighting an uphill battle to get maximum benefit from it.

The example I would use is the budget, which usually secured a sizable boost for the government just because of how much work it takes to put together. But say it was bad, with the opposition successfully arguing against based on cost/priority/black holes/whatever - the government could theoretically still get boosted by it and remain in government (hopefully I've explained this well) just by default of putting the effort in.

We also have the issue surrounding amendments - if they get bonus mods will we see arguments around who submits what and submitting for the sake of. As this is new I'm not sure how this will actually feed into the system but something to think about.

On the flip side, we do want to incentivise bill writing because ultimately that's what we're here for. But we also want to incentivise debating as that's what brings the wider community into the game. That's why I think it's something for the new electoral commissioner to look for over the next 6 months before the review to see what effect and how much the bill writing modifiers are having on polling/election results and whether this is having a negative on the game - rather than necessarily changing anything right now.

Of course, maybe this is not how it works at all, and I can be ignored...

Thanks! - this genuinely isn't meant to be targeted at the government by the way which is why I wanted to submit it before the term, but those are the examples I could think of.

Added discussion points:

Do co-sponsors get modifiers too and how does this play in to how gameable they are? How do you tell who contributed to a bill? Removing modifiers eliminates this uncertainty but may not necessarily be "fair"

The deadline has passed and we have two great candidates for Electoral Commissioner! They are as follows:

u/model-mili | Manifesto

u/Youmaton | Manifesto

Please read through and ask as many relevant questions as possible! This is a big election for us all, the first in the 2.0 system, so let's really set the tone and get our opinions and questions out there.

The timeline is as follows:

• Now - nomination and manifesto deadline, Q&A thread posted.
• 10pm GMT 5th August- voting opens, Q&A remains open.
• 10pm GMT 9th August - voting closes, results will be announced.

hello:

happy to report that I have contributed, in my own small way, to making the last election just a little bit worse.

In an attempt to be helpful, I calculated how many seats each constituency should receive at the last election based on UK population figures I had lying around in a spreadsheet. I didn't think they were perfectly accurate, given I'd collated them before the 2021 census was taken, but I thought that they would be close enough and that population growth wouldn't be sufficiently unequal to make a difference.

This was probably correct but I neglected to notice the disappearance of 1.38 million people from South Western Scotland, which I believe was the consequence of NUTS 2 subnational boundaries changing in 2016. accordingly the results were wrong before the first campaign post was made.

below are the corrections: note this does NOT account for the decision to give northern ireland an extra seat at the expense of the east of england - these are pure sainte-lague allocations

I sincerely apologise to the quad members who took me on blind faith here - this isn't really excusable as it's trivially easy to find the correct figures for this and it was absolutely my failure to do the due diligence here

if the electoral system changes then this doesn't matter but if we keep it then i think scotland needs a third seat for ge2

thank you to avtron for noticing the scotophobia

sorry again