The Free Spirits

[Whomp]

I urge everyone who supports political parties, tell me, why do you consider them fun?

Demand? Doesn't look like demanding to me.



The Spice Traders Guild... Demogame 1. A citizen group that achieved about the same as the Idoits have. There was also the Jedi Knight citizen group inside of Demogame 2 that achieved the same. (In reference to the total number of players anyway)

Same thing happened to them that will happen to the current set, people got bored of it. We have an influx of newer plays who are amazed by the flashing lights, but they will lose they're amazement sooner or later. Only question is, to the cost of how many other players?

They can have they're fun with the citizen groups, there is no need to allow slate voting and elitism.

It seems to me this discussion revolves around the Idiot’s. Let me give you a little background but I speak only for the Idiot's. Our group consists primarily of people that play this game a lot. Whether it was in a SG , PBEM, ISDG, MTDG or Pitboss we play a lot. Because of these experiences many of us have developed an enormous amount of camaraderie with each other. We like each other and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly we have fun. Consider this as well, many of the Idiot’s are extremely active on MTDG teams (with team KISS we have over 20 active participants on our team). Why? Because we have fun, trust each other and can play this game at a very high level. It's as simple as that. The Idiot's play this game a lot and play it well.

We have now decided to participate in this game. We will bring fun on the outside and serious gameplay on the inside.

What hasn't happened, and what would be most interesting to me, would be to see a party develop a platform, a plan, and campaign on that platforum in all elections they are in. That would be great to see - a group of people with a plan, campaigning on that plan. That has not happened in any DG.

I think that would put some focus and energy in the political parties, and lead to more competition between them. Heck, the internal discussions alone to develop a platform will be fun to watch.

-- Ravensfire

I think with the group at hand you will see this develop. I can't think of one elected person that didn't make the case for their office.

But don't lose faith in the system, and giants will always trip over something. First the IIP, then the Party and and maybe soon those of the low-iq's will have there support base lessend.

Be careful here. We may be idiots we aren’t stupid.
You should probably look around some of the other forums before questioning a group's IQ and more importantly, to this game, skill level.

I feel a lot of this discussion here is being directed at us. That's fine. We are not afraid of a heated discussion and questioning strategy. We do it all the time. What we won’t stand for is taking the fun out of the game. Strider you may be right. We may bail out at some point but it won’t be because of a lack of interest it will happen if it stops being fun

 

[DaveShack]

Let me share my views of slate voting and elitism and see how it fits in with what you're concerned with.

The type of party which would qualify as elitist and as using slate voting tactics is one which makes its membership exclusive of people who vote only for members of the party and who vote according to party doctrine on non-election matters. Certainly the coercive effects of this are to be avoided. If membership in a party required always voting for the party candidate or position, then it would quickly run into the forum rules, since we already have statements on record from both Rik and CT that a party may not exclude someone from membership.

The reality is a party which, for the convenience of its members, posts a list of elections which feature members as candidates. There may be statements encouraging people to vote for party members, but there is no penalty if someone votes for a different candidate. The party may suggest withholding votes, but likewise there is no penalty. A group of people who happen to think alike happen to vote for (or against) the same candidate. This is not eliteist, nor is it slate voting.

You won't find it listed all in one place, but some of the parties do indeed have platforms, and the members act true to that platform. For example, one well-established party has a "platform plank" related to making information available to the public in an easily accessible manner. Members of that party went to other folks who had access and some responsibility for certain information, to ask for it to be posted in the easily accessible form, and they got stonewalling and thinly veiled insults as a reply. Answering a simple request for information with the equivalent of "it's right there in front of your face dummy" instead of asking what can be done to make it better is pretty anti-social, and the perpetrator of such rudeness got soundly smashed in the polls. That's what I call having a platform and sticking to it.

Edit: cross-posted with Whomp, you can see we're talking about some of the same things.

 

[DaveShack]

One other thing...

Strider, we've basically threadjacked your group. This is deplorable and needs to be stopped.

Would you prefer to start a new thread and let the discussion continue here, or ask a mod to separate the citizen group from the discussion, or leave it how it is? Your thread, your decision.

 

[ravensfire]

The Spice Traders Guild... Demogame 1. A citizen group that achieved about the same as the Idoits have. There was also the Jedi Knight citizen group inside of Demogame 2 that achieved the same. (In reference to the total number of players anyway)

And that's the only way they compare. Pure RPG group vs a party. For game impact, both Civ4 and DG, there's no comparison. For RPG - neutral. Both provide ample opportunity for proponents to post within a focus.

Same thing happened to them that will happen to the current set, people got bored of it. We have an influx of newer plays who are amazed by the flashing lights, but they will lose they're amazement sooner or later.

Disagree - they may shrink, but not much. What will probably happen is those groups that do create a focus will maintain stable membership, and possibly cause other groups to form to oppose that focus. The interactions of a Dove vs a Hawk party would be quite interesting.

Only question is, to the cost of how many other players?

Only other question is, at the gain of how many new players?

They can have they're fun with the citizen groups, there is no need to allow slate voting and elitism.

Oh please, you know as well (and probably better than most) that these concepts are far from new, and have been in the DG for a long, long time. Why try to keep them behind hidden doors of inuendo and accusation? Shine the light of publicity on them, so most of these blocks can be seen.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

It seems to me this discussion revolves around the Idiot’s. Let me give you a little background but I speak only for the Idiot's. Our group consists primarily of people that play this game a lot. Whether it was in a SG , PBEM, ISDG, MTDG or Pitboss we play a lot. Because of these experiences many of us have developed an enormous amount of camaraderie with each other. We like each other and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly we have fun. Consider this as well, many of the Idiot’s are extremely active on MTDG teams (with team KISS we have over 20 active participants on our team). Why? Because we have fun, trust each other and can play this game at a very high level. It's as simple as that. The Idiot's play this game a lot and play it well.

No, it does not revolve around the idoits, and I hope it never comes to pointing blame one way or the other. I hold no grudge against the Idoit Party, or any member of it.

I feel a lot of this discussion here is being directed at us. That's fine. We are not afraid of a heated discussion and questioning strategy. We do it all the time. What we won’t stand for is taking the fun out of the game. Strider you may be right. We may bail out at some point but it won’t be because of a lack of interest it will happen if it stops being fun

You just said mostly what I said earlier. It gets old after awhile, and it stops being fun. Like I've said, if your whole purpose is to have fun, there is nothing stopping you. Not a single person has said that slate voting is the reason they're having fun.

The type of party which would qualify as elitist and as using slate voting tactics is one which makes its membership exclusive of people who vote only for members of the party and who vote according to party doctrine on non-election matters. Certainly the coercive effects of this are to be avoided. If membership in a party required always voting for the party candidate or position, then it would quickly run into the forum rules, since we already have statements on record from both Rik and CT that a party may not exclude someone from membership.

Membership inside of a party may not be exclusive, but acceptance by a party can be. Yeah, I can go into every single party inside of this game and sign up. By forum rules, they can't refuse me. Do they have to accept me as one of they're own (in a not on paper way)? Nope.

The reality is a party which, for the convenience of its members, posts a list of elections which feature members as candidates. There may be statements encouraging people to vote for party members, but there is no penalty if someone votes for a different candidate. The party may suggest withholding votes, but likewise there is no penalty. A group of people who happen to think alike happen to vote for (or against) the same candidate. This is not eliteist, nor is it slate voting.

There is a penalty for not voting for your fellow party members. They won't vote for you. Add in that the other 2/3 of the vote will be voting for their party members (for the exact same reason), your chance of election is zilch. No matter your ability, and only because everyone else in the demogame only wants to get themselves elected.

It's the reason why I hate world politics.

You won't find it listed all in one place, but some of the parties do indeed have platforms, and the members act true to that platform. For example, one well-established party has a "platform plank" related to making information available to the public in an easily accessible manner. Members of that party went to other folks who had access and some responsibility for certain information, to ask for it to be posted in the easily accessible form, and they got stonewalling and thinly veiled insults as a reply. Answering a simple request for information with the equivalent of "it's right there in front of your face dummy" instead of asking what can be done to make it better is pretty anti-social, and the perpetrator of such rudeness got soundly smashed in the polls. That's what I call having a platform and sticking to it.

Making information easily available can be the goal of a Citizen Group. They're is no need for Political Parties to handle this.

And that's the only way they compare. Pure RPG group vs a party. For game impact, both Civ4 and DG, there's no comparison. For RPG - neutral. Both provide ample opportunity for proponents to post within a focus.

Yeah... they're was no RPG during the first demogame. Care to try again?

Disagree - they may shrink, but not much. What will probably happen is those groups that do create a focus will maintain stable membership, and possibly cause other groups to form to oppose that focus. The interactions of a Dove vs a Hawk party would be quite interesting.

Doubtful, people will get bored of them, they won't have that "spark" anymore to them. They will leave, lose partcipation, and drop out of existance. Using the exact method Citizen Groups did inside of the Civ3 demogame.

Only other question is, at the gain of how many new players?

Gain? We only have around 55 active members, and this is the start of the Civ4 demogame. The second Civ3 democracy game had the same number of active members. Were behind, and as CFC as a whole is much larger than it was back then... we should have more.

Oh please, you know as well (and probably better than most) that these concepts are far from new, and have been in the DG for a long, long time. Why try to keep them behind hidden doors of inuendo and accusation? Shine the light of publicity on them, so most of these blocks can be seen.

You keep them behind hidden doors, because they have much less of an impact. They send slight shivers, instead of huge shockwaves.

 

[ravensfire]

Yeah... they're was no RPG during the first demogame. Care to try again?

Where did I say an "official" RPG? That's your hangup. Care to try again?

Doubtful, people will get bored of them, they won't have that "spark" anymore to them. They will leave, lose partcipation, and drop out of existance. Using the exact method Citizen Groups did inside of the Civ3 demogame.

Ah, Strider the enternal pessimist. We'll agree to disagree on this. I suspect we'll both be right and wrong, just to what extent won't be known for some time.

Gain? We only have around 55 active members, and this is the start of the Civ4 demogame. The second Civ3 democracy game had the same number of active members. Were behind, and as CFC as a whole is much larger than it was back then... we should have more.

Sheesh - get out of the past, will ya? THIS DG has more active members than the past 3 or 4 have. THAT'S a gain. If you think it should have more - get out and recruit some. Be productive instead of whining and complaining.

You keep them behind hidden doors, because they have much less of an impact. They send slight shivers, instead of huge shockwaves.

Oh, yeah, like that's a good thing. No, they don't cause slight shivers. The impact is much larger. It's darker and more insideous. Things like that belong in the light where everyone can see them and judge their impact. Nothing good comes from keeping such things secret.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

To all idiots:

My low iq'ed comment was not ment to offend. In fact i used it so i wouldn't offend. You all are far to smart and crafty to be idiots, or even imbeciles, so i called you low iq'ed people. Damn politcal correctness

sorry

 

[Strider]

Ah, Strider the enternal pessimist. We'll agree to disagree on this. I suspect we'll both be right and wrong, just to what extent won't be known for some time.

Agreed.

Sheesh - get out of the past, will ya? THIS DG has more active members than the past 3 or 4 have. THAT'S a gain. If you think it should have more - get out and recruit some. Be productive instead of whining and complaining.

Yes, the past 3 to 4 DG's have been mismanaged. Do you really want to start this discussion up again? I've yet to even attempt to read more of this constitution than what is needed for the Science Ministry. Based on the political parties already, I can already guess as to it's conditition.

You should know my feelings on why the last couple of Demogames have had low partcipation levels.

Whining and complaining? Yep, sounds like you. I'm being productive, I'm attempting to remove a portion of the game that I believe is hampering the games progress. What are you doing? Your defending a portion of the game that you believe is driving the games progress. I see very little differance. Were both doing what we think is best, the only differance is that I'm more open minded.

Oh, yeah, like that's a good thing. No, they don't cause slight shivers. The impact is much larger. It's darker and more insideous. Things like that belong in the light where everyone can see them and judge their impact. Nothing good comes from keeping such things secret.

The fall or the rise will have the same consequences in either case. Darker and more insideous? Depends on the circumstances, and in the large majority... it's not.

 

[Strider]

I recpect your opinion. And you are right, by my point of view i'm not helping myself, but those who like polictal parties, and those who are new players. When i joined, i was completely bewildered, and if not for the help and support i got from the early Destiny party, the IIP, and Aphawolf, i probably would have dropped out! But now i sound like a recovering druggie.

Citizen groups could achieve the same effect. Infact, I started the Coalition of Citizens to aid newcomers in understanding the game. If it wasn't for my two month absence, it would have been much more successful.

And from your point of veiw you are right, because you see politcial parties as unstable fun sucking enties of evil( ya no, paraphrasing). But you must llok at the good before the evil. How many new players have the parties helped gain confidence. IamSid was helpped by the idiots, Bengeance by the CUlturalists and Hawk-doves. All these people were helped to excedl by PARTIES. I no you will say its the same with CG, but its not, and i hope that is understood before we trudge on!

In this case, were have to agree to disagree. I believe the evil far outweighs the good, and the good can easily be accomplished with Citizen Groups without the evil.

 

[Swissempire]

Yes, the past 3 to 4 DG's have been mismanaged. Do you really want to start this discussion up again? I've yet to even attempt to read more of this constitution than what is needed for the Science Ministry. Based on the political parties already, I can already guess as to it's conditition.
.

And your repected unbaised opinion just flew ou the window in my book!

 

[Bengeance]

I think we can all admit that to some extent voting in the elections is influenced by "party" affiliation. But what evidence do you have that there was any party block voting?

And how do you propose to separate citizens groups from political parties? If the distinction between the two is block voting how do you think that could be controlled or eliminated?

 

[Strider]

And your repected unbaised opinion just flew ou the window in my book!

No opinion is unbaised. I am a loner, I like to do things myself.. and I like to handle my own problems. I do not like unity, unity causes a single goal, and single thought. It destroys the spread of ideas and creative thinking.

I wish to ban political parties, or atleast slate voting. I haven't tried hiding that.

 

[Strider]

And how do you propose to separate citizens groups from political parties? If the distinction between the two is block voting how do you think that could be controlled or eliminated?

Ban slate voting... I could careless if they still call them political parties. The name matters little to me. Just ban slate/block voting.

 

[Swissempire]

hopeless idealism. How dp you distiguish people with the same interest voting for people who represent those intrests. who belong to the same DG, from the current policitcal parties! I think your just against the name when it all boils down

 

[Bengeance]

Unless I am mistaken that has already been banned. No political party/citizens group is allowed to require members to vote in any particular way. That is part of the reason that all elections are private polls. Only the mods (I'm assuming) know who voted how unless the person voting decides to post thier votes.

 

[Strider]

hopeless idealism. How dp you distiguish people with the same interest voting for people who represent those intrests. who belong to the same DG, from the current policitcal parties! I think your just against the name when it all boils down

You don't distiguish them, each person choose's the candidate they think will do the best job. This allows everyone to be judged by they're ability, and not they're affiliation.

If I had free rein, there would be alot changed. Although, I'm sure that's the same for almost everyone else here. Everyone thinks they can do better, everyone thinks that they can improve. It's that singular thought that gives me hope we haven't lost the ability to think.

You can judge me however you want to, as long as you judge me as me, and not as a larger group. I will never respect any political party inside of this game, that is my personality... it defines me. If you dislike that, oh well, it's not changing. Will that disrespect effect my image of those that work with the party? Not at all, people have differant views than mine... hell... I don't think they're is a single person that shares my views.

 

[Strider]

Unless I am mistaken that has already been banned. No political party/citizens group is allowed to require members to vote in any particular way. That is part of the reason that all elections are private polls. Only the mods (I'm assuming) know who voted how unless the person voting decides to post thier votes.

Here's what I'd want to do:

• Create an amendment that bans groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person.
• Ban "campaign buddies," basically... no one can aid you in campaigning for a election.
• Create a voulanteer committee that drafts up debate questions for the various offices each election period. Make the debates an organized portion o f the election progress, but make the answering of debate questions optional.

 

[Bengeance]

Here's what I'd want to do:

• Create an amendment that bans groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person.
• Ban "campaign buddies," basically... no one can aid you in campaigning for a election.
• Create a voulanteer committee that drafts up debate questions for the various offices each election period. Make the debates an organized portion o f the election progress, but make the answering of debate questions optional.

I'm with you on the debates, would be a good use of time and help focus some of the question and answer time that happens before elections.

I think banning "campaign buddies" is impractical. Why should a citizen not be allowed to drum up support for someone they think will do a good job.

I also think that banning "groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person" is impractical and a violation of the rights of the citizens. If I as a citizen want to support a candidate I should not be prevented from doing so, just because other members of my citizen group/party also want to support that person.

If we look at real world examples these are basic "free speech" issues. When we get into a gray area of the issue like block voting we have to err on the side of personal freedom. Here I think that means trusting the citizens of the DG to vote those people they think most capable and not just those people that are in a citizens group/party.

 

[Strider]

I think banning "campaign buddies" is impractical. Why should a citizen not be allowed to drum up support for someone they think will do a good job.

People are allowed to voice support, and state there reason as to why they are supporting the candidate. They can not answer debate questions, etc. for the candidate.

I also think that banning "groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person" is impractical and a violation of the rights of the citizens. If I as a citizen want to support a candidate I should not be prevented from doing so, just because other members of my citizen group/party also want to support that person.

I meant agreeing, before the election, to vote/support for a certain candidate. If a large group of people happen to vote for the same candidate, it happens... as long as it's not an organized movement to do so.

 

[Bengeance]

In the sense that you are using for "campaign buddy" I agree that those regulations are reasonable.

For the other, I don't know that there is anyway to format an amendment to make that sort of distinction possible. It seems to me that the work involved in verifying something along those lines is massive compared to the returns from the work.