Join the new world

Dear friends,

A few days ago I saw a top 5 international article by the US President Artela about the threat of ONE PTOers in the USA, because they were apparently targeting the iNCi party there. Now the “PTO” was miles away from being successful- the candidate got about 100 votes in a country where there are over a thousand active voters. But the point is the mobilisation, the effect it has on the nation, and what exactly a PTO is.

First of all let’s discuss the major irony here. iNCi is a Turkish player group which migrated to the USA from Turkey shortly after the death of Phoenix. At this point they were anti-Turkish and the Turks were anti-American, so in a sense they were on approximately the same side. But the influx of a large number of non-native and centrally organised citizens threatened PTO for the USA. To this day iNCi are one of the largest player groups in the US. The fact that America had to protect them says a lot about how non-native populations can be peacefully absorbed.

To begin the article I want to talk about the stages of a PTO and the major effect this has on a country. The first stage is an influx of a few citizens which are allowed in by rogue congressmen. Sometimes these congressmen are just inactive, sometimes they are multi-accounts or spies from the start. This is almost impossible to defend against, but some countries have tried. This is easier for the USA because they only have one congressman per region, so “blocking” PTO candidates is easier. But what effect does this have on a country? It has a negative effect by partitioning the country between the major parties, and removes the normal hurly burly of competitive elections.

The second stage worsens this. As the PTO group gains enough members to actually win seats, it’s not just a case of blocking PTO candidates but attempting to block a whole party. For example a top 5 party can run members in every seat, hold votes until the last moment and quickly “snipe” a seat. In a large country this can quite easily achieve 1-2 seats, which means a significant number of citizenship passes. Another strategy is to infiltrate and run all your members in any spare places parties leave. This is less sure but with the USA’s case there are at least 250 candidates nationally, and only a few need to slip through to win. Again often these players are anonymised by removing articles, friends and “about me” to make them seem more native.

Now what are the dangers here? Apart from the obvious threat of PTO, the major effect is the total destruction of party boundaries. Usually the government becomes a government of national unity out of necessity, and votes go to the “nationally approved” list rather than by party. So choice is for the large part removed to the election organiser rather than the voters. You tend to see governments made out of members from all parties, and the parties themselves being more relics of the old way of doing things than specific entities in themselves. With most of the talented players in the government, there is no opposition and things stagnate. With most key players forming the government, it’s hard for other players to underline mistakes made by the administration.

The third and final stage of this poisonous down spiral is the amalgamation of all the non-PTO parties in the eyes of the public into “the government”. When people are angry they lash out at the government- when the government is made up of all parties this can cause a real problem. Sometimes the PTO party gets genuine support because of it, but more often you see the rise of rogue anti-establishment parties led by newer and less experienced players. Most of the time these lack the competence to survive but that doesn’t stop them taking steadily larger numbers of players away from the main parties and damaging the election anti-PTO campaign. The more you insist that people should vote how they are told, the more fuel you add to the fire of anti-establishment politics.

The point I am making here is that the ATO (anti-take over) movements brought on by governments can be as bad or worse than the threat they are designed to counter.

Secondly I want to talk about what a PTO is. For those who don’t know, PTO is a political take over of a country. This usually involves hostile citizens from abroad, though it can be used to describe any organised group which join an entity with the intention to radically alter it. For example, if 100 communists joined a right wing party to try and change it to a socialist one or prevent it running candidates, that would be considered by many to be a PTO even if they’re all one nationality.

What are the problems with this? Let’s address it point by point, with examples:

1. Hostile citizens from abroad...- This is a major falling point. Many countries have large foreign citizen bases, and often the elections decide allegiance. For example, take South Africa. The majority of South Africa’s citizens ingame are not South African in the real world. Historically it had a large English speaking population from the UK, USA and Canada. The same can be said of New Zealand. But what defines a country as “hostile”. South Africa and the UK have been enemies for 2+ years now but many Brits move there. New Zealand has a huge number of Serbians and Slovenians, and has since its foundations. Would Americans moving there be considered hostile? It’s difficult to define.

2. Radically altering policy...- It’s a bit of a running joke that the UK changes allies like socks. But the truth is that there was only one major switch since we joined PEACE and that was when the UK briefly joined Terra (or rather its predecessor). This was a huge shift in policy. Months later we quit Terra and became pro-ONE. To foreigners, this looks a bit crazy, but the truth is that the UK always had large pro-ONE and pro-Terra factions. The main argument for Terra was that our allies (mainly France and Germany) went there. However the actions of Terra and EDEN over those few months steadily eroded the power of that faction and eventually this resulted in us quitting Terra. That is a radical policy change being enacted by one faction over another. Some people felt so strongly they left the UK later, including famous tank Margaret H Thatcher and the current USA President Artela. Sudden changes in policy are not always bad and not always the will of the population as a whole- whether foreign citizens are involved or not.


My point overall here is that a PTO is hard to define. iNCi were a group which formed all the characteristics of a PTO group but had no malicious intent towards the USA. The Balkan players who are currently messing around are a threat to the USA, but not in the obvious sense. The danger of a PTO is small, but the danger to American politics is huge.

Each change made to protect the country limits the politics of its people further. Eventually the question must be (to paraphrase a famous son of the USA) how much liberty are you willing to sacrifice for that security, and is it worth it? The answer should be obvious. Most players aren’t involved in international/alliance politics and the parties are not only training grounds for leaders but also activity tools. People join them to play at party politics, and as that aspect is slowly stripped so too is the opportunity for people to excel and prove themselves to their fellows and to learn the skills they need to replace their leaders.

If you look around the world today, the amount of this party homogenisation is high and getting higher all the time. As it gets worse, your future dies.

We need to understand that the biggest threat to our countries will always be the threat we create ourselves.

Iain