 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000 time: 07:22
|
|
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 
Attachment: egypt1.gif
This has been downloaded 108 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
"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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
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?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:22
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: 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 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|