The No Party party

[notyoueither]

If you agree with this, sign on.

I am a thinking being and have the power of the vote for myself for every law, regulation and election. I do not need other people to represent me.

I do not need other people to tell me who to vote for or what to support.

I prefer a party that allows me to do whatever I feel like doing that minute. Let's party!

Feel free to add further doctines to our cause, or let this thread sleep with the fishes.

[theViking]

I don't want to be any part of this...

[kring]

Sounds interesting. I am personally tired of the bipartisan politics and finger pointing that was going on.

[DAVOUT]

Political parties are created when several citizens share a common ideological attitude ; in the demo game we have started parties on the argument of strategies (builders versus warmongers) ; the game has demonstrated that this point is not ideological (it is purely practical in view of optimising the result), and therefore cannot be the basis of political parties.
So, we should search the ideological attitudes that we adopt toward the demo game if we want to incorporate in it some flavour of politics. These attitudes appears in the arguments used in the discussions. For instance, the following arguments could be in one or several political programs:

- it is just a game : The pro IIJG argument feels that it is harmless to do ANYTHING just because it is not real. The anti IIJG feels exactly the contrary. He cannot be rationally convince that the other side is right. This is political.
- Real Life : Should we try to replicate RL in the game or not? Both attitude have their own logic and interest, but are clearly in opposition. This is political.
- It will slow the game : in a demo game, we could expect that the priority is given to the democracy aspects, since the Civ 3 game is only the pretext of the demo game ; but we observe that anytime the demo mechanics could postpone the playing of some turns by a few days, the IWSTG argument justify any disrespect of the law. This is also a political choice.

You see that I think that there is room for politics in our game, but like you I am not interested at all in being told how I must vote.

[adaMada]

I'm an Independent, and plan on remaning that way (which means I agree with your party in spirit, but won't join and loose my valued Independent Status, at least for now... I could see myself joining later.). I wasn't around for lots of the party politics, but whenever they popped up the game seemed to be a lot less fun. It was always the same people opposing the same other people with the same points that never got through to the other side... Seemed to take the fun out of some of the discussions .

-- adaMada

[jdd2007]

this has to be the eighth try for an independents party...

[UnOrthOdOx]

NYE,

I agree with alot of what you say. It was my sincere hope that the parties would simply drift away and die. In fact, Timeline once stated that if the UFC disbanded, the DIA would as well. His successor's do not feel the same way, however, and insist on organizing.

They have repeatedly ignored my request that they leave out the parties and instead form something akin to the War Academy to promote 'builder' strategies. Such an organization could only hel their cause better than a party in the long run, but they do not see it that way.

I do not like a 2 party system any more than you guys, but I beleive a one party system would only alienate more pople from the game should they disagree with that party.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I do not like a 2 party system any more than you guys, but I beleive a one party system would only alienate more pople from the game should they disagree with that party.

I doubt we'll ever get a one party system... I mean, the DIA starts to regroup, and then the hawks suddenly do too. I think that’s a pattern we may see often .

I agree with you, however, in that a Builders Guild would get a lot more done than the DIA does right now. The Hawks could probably form another Guild that specifically addresses the issue of declaring war (not just fighting it as the War Academy already does). The main reason to separate that from the War Academy is because I consider the War Academy to be a respected and highly non-partisan organization, and I think it'd be a shame to loose that.

-- adaMada

[Donal Graeme]

Unfortunately, it is not likely that major parties will disappear, like they did for the CFC demo game, as there will always be those who believe in different courses of action, and will organize to support them. In fact, is suspect that more parties may emerge later in the game, when it becomes necessary to chose which victory type we will seek.

[DAVOUT]

Major parties ? From which point of view ? Not the number of members, not the events they organize, not the influence they have. The way the game is played in a technical manner, using datas, hypothesis, analysis, brainstorming, tools purposely conceived and made (maps, stats), drive the parties in a dead end. They have no ground to build on. It is the reason why I suggested that they find a new approach based on a new ideology.

[Panag]

hi ,

, the no party party , that sound like a party , ....

a party to party , ....

okay , you touched a good string there NYE , a party should not tell who or what to vote for , every one has the right to vote the way he or she wants , ....

and any oppressed people out there , no need to worry , just read the sig , ....

have a nice day

[Ninot]

I didn't say no to Skywalkers independant party because it was Skywalker...

i do not join this party, and keep my status as independant.

[notyoueither]

But that's the great thing Ninot. By supporting this party, you are in No Party. I don't even think this party, which is No Party, should have any members. It definitely should never have a slate of candidates. We should drink beer.

[Donegeal]

Nice new avatar Ninot!

[caesarqbear]

The problem with only an Academy or Guild is that you run the risk of nobody listening to you but yourselves. The idea of a party is to support and clarify a point of view, not to monopolize a discussion. The fact that the DIA has stirred so much talk by its revival means that it's doing its job. There are some very well spoken and well heard citizens who support further war and a number of them currently hold positions of decision making. The DIA is not seeking to have them all silenced but to simply be heard as well, on an equal basis. Just because party politics in RL and in the past may suck, doesn't mean it has to.

[adaMada]

If the DIA and the Hawks (not sure if the UFC exists anymore) can coexist, supporting their respective goals without disagreeing on everything then I wouldn't mind. My personal problem is best given by an example... In a bout of party politics, Sir Ralph and Spiffor were arguing over if some war was necessary (I forget which). After going back and forth a few times, I found myself barely skimming their posts -- they were basically arguging back and forth over the same things, with both sides unwilling to cede that the other side had good points. I wish I could pull up the actual conversation, but I do remember having this feeling that it was a shame that two of our Civilization's most respected members had managed to almost null each other out so completely during that one conversation that I found myself almost skipping their posts (within that one conversation, of course -- I have nothing but respect for both Sir Ralph and Spiffor).

The war with Persia discussion, on the other hand, as yet to see a big arguement between parties in any of the discussion threads. I see a lot of productive conversation going on there, even amoungst people who disagree. I worry, however, that if parties start to get involved on a large scale, we'll find ourselves locked in that cycle of all the DIA members on one side behind one respected speaker and all the UFC/Hawk members on the other side behind another respected speaker.

Basically, if both parties can coexist without getting into major fights outside of election time, then I'd have no problem with Parties, and probably even consider them benefitial. I've just gotta see it before I believe it, that's all .

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarb™]

Some of us are neither DIA or Hawk, in my case probably because neither side wants me....................

[Sean]

No party party?!?
Don''t spam with blatant contradiction in terms!
If you want to be independent, fine, just do it, i.e. be independent, but don't harp on about it!

It is a perfectly legitimate choice for each individual to make, but to form a "no party party" is a nonsense. Such a party stands for everything, and nothing.

Sean.

[adaMada]

Actually, a 'no party party', aka a group against the idea of having parties, makes some sense to me. Of course, no one will join it -- that'd negate the point of having it. But it is a good point for discussion about if parties are worth having, I think.

-- adaMada

[GodKing]

Stop talking politics please and pass me a beer. Thanks. I thought this was a party to get away from politics. Guess I was wrong. Where is that beer?

[Sean]

"Actually, a 'no party party', aka a group against the idea of having parties, makes some sense to me. Of course, no one will join it -- that'd negate the point of having it."

QED. Thanks.

[Nubclear]

I've been lurking for the past few hours, and i was wondering....

Isn't this the exact same thing Skywalker tried doing? Wasn't he completly blasted (By NYE IIRC) for doing it?

[jdd2007]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I've been lurking for the past few hours, and i was wondering....

Isn't this the exact same thing Skywalker tried doing? Wasn't he completly blasted (By NYE IIRC) for doing it?

there was other people trying out the idea long before Sky.

[Spiffor]

I completely disagree with the "no party party" or any other attempt of this kind (I remember the Unparty, the STOP, and skywalker's Independent party. No doubt there has been more and will be more).

Let me explain why I disagree with any form of "Unparty" : so far, all discussions are about middle- and short term policy. The aim of our discussions (in the military academy, Machiavelli institute and so on) is to meet the most optimal decisions. It's a good thing.

But it's not enough. The democracy game is not just about elaborating strategies. There is a latent, unsolvable debate about what kind of victory we want. Some think we should go for domination / conquest because they think war is more fun. Some think we should go for culture / spaceship because they feel more satisfied by this.
The question about the type of victory is essential (at least to me). I don't want our victory to be decided by the circumstances rather than by ourselves. And I think parties are the only place where this question can really be "discussed".

Lastly, NYE says he doesn't have to be represented, nor has to vote as per party's orders. He's right, we're a direct democracy. But parties here aren't about party discipline, and there are no "forced" votes... I understand parties have drawbacks (bringing ideology in some debates which require only rational analysis), but the horrible drawback they have IRL doesn't exist here IMO.

[Harovan]

Give all conventional parties a decent bury. Forget them. Boycott them. Don't elect their candidates.

Power to the No Party Party.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I understand parties have drawbacks (bringing ideology in some debates which require only rational analysis), but the horrible drawback they have IRL doesn't exist here IMO.

Personally, i see how the potential drawback of screwing up rational analasis hurts.

But, on an ideological level, i think the parties are too weak.

In the Ancient Era, under myself and Trip, the nation had no choice but to go on a war path. that was obvious. but now, that we can make decisions, with what has become a sizable empire, im disheartened to see that DIA has lost power when the time for building is so ripe.

Ideologically, I should never have been president in a time of war (being DIA at the time), and the first two governments should have been predominantly UFC. But now, that the time for building is good, the DIA has been lost, and not many of its members hold position any more, when voices for war are still loud.

Right now, rational thoughts on war should coincide with ideological ones, now that we have good options on both sides of the coin. But The nation seems to never leave the warpath, because the ideology of the builder is dying. There is always talks of the next target, and always talks of of building untill a certain tech, but that tech is never far off, thus keeping us in a war.

sorry, just my rant

[Apocalypse]

Arg. It is annoying to see you and Trip still around but not really doing anything very helpful.

[Ninot]

lol...admitt it, you miss us

[Apocalypse]

It is just that the current and future Vice Presidents are really strapped for time. I am mad at Trip more than you. He has been playing Europa and designing a new Civ3 scenario.

[notyoueither]

Stop jackin' my No Party party, you politicians!

Pass a