new citizens group "The National Order"

[Kato]

Heck, we haven't even decided what, if anything, we DO as a group. What do we do again?

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by robacus
Sarevok, i assure you that our group breaks no laws in the DG. But your extreme distrust of a group that stands for human intellgenance over AI programming is distressing. So far me, Kato and Cregser have joined the National Order. By my calucalations that is three citizens.

For 3 citizens of Fanactica I would hope the minister for the interoir would be worrying about more pressing issues, culture, interal defence etc. I hope you do all this well, hopefully as vigorously as you try to intimidate legal citizens groups.

There as been much talk of illegally. Any questions feel free to privite msg me but i would like to see more discussion on our tread and less allegiacions.

I distrust a group that thinks it is superior than another group, even if the other group dose not really "live".

When I was minister (and technically I still am for 2 more days), that was all I was worried about, the fact that I had minimal time to run a major office. concerning 'intimidation', you yourselves are intimidating. Anyone who makes the claims this group has made in any form is a cause of distress after what was seen in WW2.

Personally, so long as you dont try to "coup" Fanatica I dont consider this group illegal. The group itself is not illegal in my eyes, but it is a cause of concern and suspicion.

 

[robacus]

People can now plainly see that no matter how much talk we have with the ruling elite they will never trust us. The next question is why? It might have something to do with a group that trys people before politics and give a voise to those not selected by the liberal elite.

i find it shocking that the minister lost asleep over 3 free citizens. What kind of system do we have that has the government more worried about good Fanacticans than the nations and people who plan to destroy us?

I will not apologise for the National Order because simply we have done nothing but speak our minds and remain true to Fanactica.

"Let ye without sin cast the first stone"

 

[Chieftess]

It's not so much gameplay as it is with the forum rules. There's a potential for elitism with a political group, and the fact that political groups WERE tried before (Civ2 demogame), and they tend to get messy. A political group also tells it's members to "vote for the leader, and no one else". That's not a true democracy, which is what the game is intended to be.

 

[ravensfire]

It is interesting to see how such a small group can cause such massive concern among some citizens. Personally, if you're concerned about actions of people and the effect on the game, this group has done nothing that would lead me to call them intimidating or even influential. There are others that fall into that category with the force, specific targetting and overall negative nature of their comments.

Look there first for a reason that some (or at least, I) have pretty much walked away from the game. The sense of cooperation and fun that was present even in DG3 has been long gone in this game. Too many demands for perfection and not enough willingness to use the structure of the game to it's fullest. It's a free-for-all right now.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Chieftess
It's not so much gameplay as it is with the forum rules. There's a potential for elitism with a political group, and the fact that political groups WERE tried before (Civ2 demogame), and they tend to get messy. A political group also tells it's members to "vote for the leader, and no one else". That's not a true democracy, which is what the game is intended to be.

CT, what exactly makes this a political party of sorts? This is just a citizen's group that has decided not to die immediately after sign-ups and instead show a point of view. I don't particularly approve of this group, but they are doing nothing wrong.

 

[Kato]

Originally posted by ravensfire
It is interesting to see how such a small group can cause such massive concern among some citizens.

Well, actually, it's only been Sarevok and Chieftess, but considering that is maybe 1% of the DemoGame population, that is pretty significant concern (if 1% of America were upset, that would be 2.9 million people ; ) Of course I am joking here, it really has only been those two, with a few others piping in now and then to correct some people. Either way, we are not here for some perceived shock value, but it is very nice to have debate over these issues, so they are very welcome here as long as they bring intelligent commentary.

Personally, if you're concerned about actions of people and the effect on the game, this group has done nothing that would lead me to call them intimidating or even influential. There are others that fall into that category with the force, specific targetting and overall negative nature of their comments.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the rather appropriate allusion, but I just thought I would respond to something here. It is true that we are not intimidating or possibly influential (however one quantifies that), but we are not meant to be that more than any other group. We are here to spark discussion, thought and possibly gain members when they come around to seeing our point of view on what needs to be done in the current events of this game (and YES, that is possible without bullying ; ) No member of the group has to vote along the same lines as the leader (it never says that once in our mission statement) and we have honestly no power to 'bully' other players into voting a certain way (votes are private, so such would be impossible).

Look there first for a reason that some (or at least, I) have pretty much walked away from the game. The sense of cooperation and fun that was present even in DG3 has been long gone in this game. Too many demands for perfection and not enough willingness to use the structure of the game to it's fullest. It's a free-for-all right now.

Thank you! Our group is all about interaction with the game/other players and discussion, and I personally am interested in full cooperation with the other players, that is what a debate is FOR! Compromise and rational discussion : ) I know what you mean by demands for perfection, and I think one of the game spoilers also is overprotective, overwary citizens who don't see harmless fun as that, but as some major and dangerous conspiracy ; ) It doesn't have to be a free-for-all of course, get in a group, participate in this country, and let's see what we can do with it! We all have different views on where this should go, and that IS the game.

 

[robacus]

well said Kato.

if you guys really feel intimidated by us start somegroup yourself, its not that hard.

 

[Sarevok]

You make it sound like Im scared of what this group is going to do. Believe me, There is very that unnerves me, and even then it is minimal. This group does not make me thing the DG is going to face a coup, nor do I consider them powerful in any form. Perhaps making a very clear set of what this group believes in that does not sound fascist in nature would remove my concern over what this group's motives are.

 

[tao]

Perhaps making a very clear set of what this group believes ...

Is there a "group"?

I see a poster with the spelling capabilities of a 9 year old making statements like "We need to preserve the unity of the one pure race" and "Attack us and what u say is you support foreign powers, encourage the parasites ...". Using vocabulary like this IMO displays a significant lack in in history knowledge, but maybe as a German I am more sensitive than others.

 

[Kato]

Wow. That was both fair and topical. Wait, no it wasn't.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Kato
Wow. That was both fair and topical. Wait, no it wasn't.

Did you expect anything less?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Did you expect anything less?

-- Ravensfire

No I didnt. Tao does have a point though...

 

[robacus]

If i had started a communist/socialist group than we would not even hear from you about racial statements or coups. But when ultra nationalist group is started (that believe me i want to have as much fun here as possible without curtailing on others fun) people think we the boogy men.

I dont even see a coherant arguement hear from the opposition that once again i ask to please start an opposition group where you can bad mouth us as much as you please.

 

[Chieftess]

There was another communist group earlier, and believe me, there were the same concerns of it being a political group, which really hasn't been allowed in previous Civ3 demogames. And once again, I agree with Tao.

 

[robacus]

no wonder noone esle is playing this.

"let kings have crowns are as fit as his people, but a king without people has no crown."

 

[Chieftess]

Take a look at the Citizen Groups in the 1st Civ3 demogame (in the archives). There were many citizen groups then, but they didn't have anything to do with political groups.

 

[Kato]

Alright. I can see how some of the Group Charter may set a little uneasy with the sensitive, but you have to understand that this is all in the context of a computer game. The "one people" that should dominate the game are us, the players (as opposed to the computers). It would be silly to give up our power or potential power to computers that are only put in the game to challenge us. The Mission Statement may be abrasive, but only when you take it out of context and, as we do not want to ever be discussing in-context issues outside-of-their-context, let's remember that fact.

I feel that the term "political group" has been illegitimately used with copious indiscretion. What do you mean by "political group?" AFTER defining that in your mind, make sure if this group is or is not political after all. I had assumed "political group" had meant a group that would bully politics and state agenda, or would set out to overthrow or undermine the DemoGame constitution in some way.

Now the only clause that could be taken in this way is the one line in our Charter that says "form a voting bloc," which shouldn't be there because we had already discovered (later in this very topic) that that was illegal (this group honestly did not know that and by no means intended to violate the current law). In fact, the only political idea we hold is for "strong leadership" and "national growth," which is the farthest thing from a harmful idea.

Let me just, in brief, detail what the charter says, for those who didn't read it:

We stand as promoters of aggressive war (there are other groups that promote different manners of war, but THEY are not harassed!)
We stand for national security.
We stand for great technological achievement.
We stand for aggressive growth policies.
We stand for national hegemony.

 

[Sarevok]

then why dont you just post those items as youre ideals and there would be no problems!

 

[Kato]

Those are the things it says on our charter, just reworded a little to be more clear and less "in-character."