Where Should We Settle?

[Shattered]

Fear not, Shattered, your oh so kind words will not chase me off. Nor will the continual back-handed insults.

-- Ravensfire

I wasn't trying to scare you off. I was just dissenting against your dissention.

KNOCK IT OFF PEOPLE!

Or I'll start my bloody own democracy game x.x

I see your point Croxis. I shall try to avoid trading provocations with RF from now on.

I do believe they are accomplishing the opening at a faster rate than the method you have proposed. I don't think they stumbled. You're just trying to rouse the rabble. It's not a requirement for the triad to discuss the first city placement with us, yet there are threads and this opinion poll to that affect. Best of all, with the recent activity they are near the top of the appropriate forums so that everyone may see them, and throw in their comments as they see fit.

(Besides, revolting from Despotism makes more sense when it doesn't work perfectly)

If we didn't involve the populace, it wouldn't be a demogame, just an election. We the Triad are just trying to do our part as the Prime Faction. This system we are playing is brand new and untried, so this will be a fun experience for us all.

 

[Methos]

My faction lost and I did not support the Triad in anyway, yet if Shattered and any of the other Triad leaders were to act in anything different than as despots, I'd be a bit upset. My understanding of this game is that we are supposed to abide by the civic we are in, so if the Triad started making this a democracy then I'd say they weren't playing within the spirit of the game.

The poll was a bad idea IMO, especially since it has no bearing. This should have just been a discussion, but I suspect some of it has to do with the fact it's finally starting. I also suspected this is how the first city would be decided from reading the Triad's platform. It said certain factions would get a specific city and to my understanding that means they have full say over everything regarding it.

Not everyone is a role-player and that's fine, but what I would really like to see is those individuals who disagree with our leaders instead be standing on the street corners, hidden in back alleys, and calling secret meetings discussing/plotting the downfall of the current [in general] tyrant.

As to the arguing, well this is a DG. Without the bickering it wouldn't be a DG. I disagree with a court system though, as it doesn't fit in with our current knowledge. Instead in my opinion the decision would be based on the current tyrant leader.

 

[Provolution]

I agree with Methos here, 100 %. I also do think they are plotting for a shift in power, but they need more to go on, a real trend. So far, the bickering is more of a metagame nature, more about how the rules are played and what rights citizens do have. If the opposition roleplayed their content instead of flaming individual posters, they could have managed to gain some sympathy as well. The only real attacks on Triad I found funny and entertaining in any way, is Berties Blog on the early game as well as Timus inspired roleplay.

Of course it is despotism, its our civic. How do you manage to sell despotism as an ideology (among with 4 other starting civics), is challenging, but doable, without playing out a traditional 20th century fair democrat system. Faction Cities made such a concept real, and in a sense each city gets way more attention than a single governor can do it, as it involves more people than the normal household names that vote for each other.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

Do not try to discredit the settle in place argument as a "metagame" issue. I do not agree with trading insults or flaming, etc...but just post based on the facts presented. There are really only two plausible scenarios. Settle in place or 1SE. As to these two arguments, people should only be posting opinions and not trying to squelch a position based on anything personal. Honestly, I don't take it personal when someone disagrees with me. If I'm wrong, I'll admit to it, but nor do I think anyone should be forced to agree with anyone out of principle or loyalty, etc...If you have a strong opinion, based on factual analysis, then so state it and defend it, but don't get all emotional about it.

The choice comes down to a personal preference, period. Both positions have healthy pros and an equal share of cons. Our game wont be ruined either way.

However, I would also like to state that the Triad should have more than enough information now to make the decision and let's get on with the game.

I appreciate the opportunity that the Triad has given me and others to be heard, but let's close this poll and make the move, etc...

 

[Provolution]

KWP, I was not hinting at the location discussion, but the attempts of other players to make this poll the issue, not the location to choose. Personally I would like 1S2E, not SE or place, but people got different playing styles and preferences.

The key here was to air views on various location options, not to argue the political process. And you are right, Legion is to make the decision, an informed one, thanks to this discussion. Consider the poll more of a focus of attention for these discussions.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

KWP, I was not hinting at the location discussion, but the attempts of other players to make this poll the issue...QUOTE]

Ah, well, then in that case I am with you.

 

[bamf226]

My faction lost and I did not support the Triad in anyway, yet if Shattered and any of the other Triad leaders were to act in anything different than as despots, I'd be a bit upset. My understanding of this game is that we are supposed to abide by the civic we are in, so if the Triad started making this a democracy then I'd say they weren't playing within the spirit of the game.

How is it a democracy if the citizens do not get the final say. We, the Triad, are listening to what people have to say about the opening position, but the voice of the people is not the deciding factor. We will choose where to build the first city and it might not be backed by popular choice.

 

[fed1943]

As I see it, the vote has no importance, but the reasons posted do have.
Leaders "must" look at these reasons, agree or disagree with, and thus
be helped to perform a better play.
And it seems that's what happened.
Best regards,

 

[Strider]

Yup - that's what a few people wanted, and worked the system to get.

The people get what they voted for, however, and what they've gotten so far is minimal organization, chaos and lack of communication.

I don't really see how that's a bad thing. The past DG's we had everything beaten down to an art which got rather boring after awhile. It reminds me a lot of the first Civ3 demogame. We are stumbling in a darkened room. Which is by no means a kindness to our feet, but damn is it exciting.

I don't really see the purpose of this poll. It's far to soon for any sane person to create a solid opinion.

 

[dutchfire]

Just an off-topic post about democracy in general (there's apperently no more reason to make on-topic posts, because what I say about the start won't be considered by our glorious leadership anyway)

The <name>s and <name2>s speak about "pure democracy" and "democracy" in general for the purpose of deceiving the people and concealing from them the bourgeois character of present-day democracy. Let the bourgeoisie continue to keep the entire apparatus of state power in their hands, let a handful of exploiters continue to use the former, bourgeois, state machine! Elections held in such circumstances are lauded by the bourgeoisie, for very good reasons, as being "free", "equal", "democratic" and "universal". These words are designed to conceal the truth, to conceal the fact that the means of production and political power remain in the hands of the exploiters, and that therefore real freedom and real equality for the exploited, that is, for the vast majority of the population, are out of the question. It is profitable and indispensable for the bourgeoisie to conceal from the people the bourgeois character of modern democracy, to picture it as democracy in general or "pure democracy", and the <name1>s and <name2>s, repeating this, in practice abandon the standpoint of the proletariat and side with the bourgeoisie

Who would agree with the statements expressed here?
(10 awesome points to anyone who knows who wrote this quote without using google, pm if you know )
I deleted the two names in there by the way, to avoid easier guessing (though I doubt it would have helped anyone).

 

[DaveShack]

I guessed based on the presence of one word in the passage, and was on the right track.

 

[BCLG100]

Well it was Lenin... If you ever see Bourgeois and means of production in the same paragraph its one of three: marx, trotsky or Lenin. In that case it was Lenin.

It was him cracking on about 'Democracy' and Dictatorship.

edit- Perhaps that would have been harder for someone who wasn't a student of history thinking about it...

edit2- it may have been called Dictatorship and 'Democracy'

edit3- im going to go for my original guess.

 

[Provolution]

Well then, I look forward to the research of Communism with awe.

 

[pat123]

I agree with Provo and say 1S 2E. Both are great sites, but Philosophers is a philosopher faction, and therefore should focus on philosophy not production. But, thats just my opinion.

 

[dutchfire]

Well it was Lenin... If you ever see Bourgeois and means of production in the same paragraph its one of three: marx, trotsky or Lenin. In that case it was Lenin.

It was him cracking on about 'Democracy' and Dictatorship.

edit- Perhaps that would have been harder for someone who wasn't a student of history thinking about it...

edit2- it may have been called Dictatorship and 'Democracy'

edit3- im going to go for my original guess.

I should have removed the word bourgeois too in a few places, but you're entirely correct