Ambient on/off

Sign up

 

Continue

Continue By creating an account you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy

What do you want?

Day 2,001, 07:03 Published in USA USA by fingerguns


The Fed statement on US-AIM was surprisingly controversial. To me, it seems pretty simple. If US-AIM is going to succeed, they will need political help and it seems somewhat unlikely that they would get that help from the individuals who were closely involved in the JCS split or have isolated themselves from the rest of the game by locking themselves in the White House for a ridiculous amount of time. The Feds are packed to the rafters with newer players who have been working their way into government who are desperate for change.

Additionally, Easy Company was historically considered an independent MU, even while being tied to the Feds. It was one of the very first independent militias and it took the political arm of the party to get them recognition and fair treatment among the other military units/government. If anyone is in a position to negotiate between independent fighters and political types, I would think it would be the two groups that had an excellent and mutually beneficial working relationship for over 4 years. That both the party and the MU grew so large that they needed to stand on their own hardly means the relationship was a failure. It was a clear success. We are proud to see Easy Company as a very vocal part of US-AIM and we are proud to support them and the other independent MUs politically. We will help them get what they want. Not 'just because BFFs', but because of the obvious wisdom in trying to get our national fighting force cooperating.



The statement wasn't only controversial once it hit the media. It was hotly debated among the party members, as well. While the majority was in support, hence the publication, those who opposed it did so aggressively. The opinions seemed to split themselves mostly along the lines of how long you've been playing this game. A number of older players didn't want the party to get involved, generally making the argument that as long as the JCS is involved, it will be a failure and we don't want to get involved with a failure. Newer players, however, were almost unanimously supportive of the party working to help make this relationship a success. For many newer players, Unity elections are all they have ever known. They weren't around for the JCS split. All they really know is that elections are boring and we are weak on the battlefield because people aren't on the same page. To those people, the idea of US-AIM excites them. US-AIM means change. US-AIM means fun.

There are people on both sides (US-AIM and gov) who are saying the same things- the other side will never cooperate and this will fail. They're not really willing to compromise.

Let me ask you this- Do you WANT it to fail? Or do you want things to change?



Consider the implications of failure here. Best case scenario, the country rewinds the clock 8 months or so when we first started Unity elections and the nation was probably at its most divided. The government becomes more aggressive in their disregard of the general population and independent military units go back to conducting their own foreign affairs and removing damage from eUS initiatives, if not fighting directly against them. That divide weakens the nation to the point where the PTO can once again regain a foothold. And that's really AT BEST. The most we can hope for is that nothing changes and we all just stay discontent indefinitely. Hopefully people don't quit.

Now if you want this to succeed, let's think about what that could mean. JCS and other groups start supporting national ATO efforts and we're able to cut the PTO off at the knees and be rid of Unity elections. Our various military units coordinate together with our official foreign affairs so we can have meaningful wars again and start advancing eUS objectives across the world. Newer leaders have the opportunity (and the desire) to rise up through the ranks, so a time when the government and the military WEREN'T on the same page becomes a distant memory. With something to really fight for and a more unified community, we have an easier time retaining new citizens to grow and strengthen our population.



Whichever one you WANT to have happen, success or failure, you play a part in it. And by 'you' I don't mean MU commanders and government officials. I mean every citizen that has taken to article comments, shout feeds and IRC conversations. I am not a government official (being a 'former CP' means nothing), I'm not even in Congress and I am certainly not an MU commander. I'm just an average, albeit 'famous', citizen, and I'm telling you that every active player exercising their voice can contribute to the direction of this nation.

What do you WANT that direction to be? How are you helping to make it happen?



Thanks for reading,
 

Comments

Josh Frost
Josh Frost Day 2,001, 07:12

OMG!! This makes so much sense. I must disagree in some fashion!!

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 19:51

It happened.

weasel2
weasel2 Day 2,001, 07:20



I don't SEE any, but you gotta be careful; ya never know, ya know?

I am Groot
I am Groot Day 2,001, 07:21

What I personally want and I speak for myself is NE Spain, and do not make peace with them the first time something goes wrong.

Keep on pushing them, until learn TWO should read TW is not O.

Mr. Swagg
Mr. Swagg Day 2,001, 07:35

then they'll just start brainstorming what THREE will stand for

Bucephalus92
Bucephalus92 Day 2,001, 10:09

Change Spain to Poland or Serbia and I would be happy

Siddy Tramero
Siddy Tramero Day 2,001, 20:23

Sure, lose like half of your CoT MPPs. Seems sensible.

I n f o r m e r
I n f o r m e r Day 2,001, 08:27

Not much.

Dio Makso
Dio Makso Day 2,001, 08:29

Agreed, voted. ^ _ ^

If political parties or other player communities within the eUSA decide to officially state their support for US-AIM, this just makes sense. No part of our larger community exists in isolation. I understand that some may feel hesitant or skeptical at a party making such a statement, but what is the alternative? For all the parties to completely ignore the new movement? That sure worked with the JCS. I'd rather see those in support express their support. We're better off with a cohesive community, not a divisive community.

Sometimes organized military units, independent militias, small parties, player movements, etc, decide to express their political voice, and in terms of congress they have to do so through larger parties. Some do it one by one, citizen by citizen, some do it as a group. Anyone remember S.E.E.S.? Before they became an established large party, they were a small movement of like-minded players. They ran their folks for Congress through the USWP. I remember, as I was on the USWP Executive Board as well as part of S.E.E.S. at the start before Emerick came back to us, and I advocated for them, much to the later chagrin of Fionia.

The relationship became contentious later. In my view, both sides ultimately benefited from the conflict. Regardless, the earlier point stands... sometimes movements rely on individuals, sometimes they move in groups. If a big party wants to offer a hand of friendship, where's the problem? They needed to start somewhere given the nature of the game mechanics in our political system, now more than ever.

I'm not saying that one party can or should try to co-opt a movement... I'm saying that if one or more big parties wants to formally announce their support of the movement and express a desire to work together to improve the national community, good. That can only improve the sandbox for the rest of us.

vergolian
vergolian Day 2,001, 08:34

Scanning through this article I saw the word 'sandbox' somewhere. Sounds legit.

anonymoushooligan
anonymoushooligan Day 2,001, 09:04

I want cat GIFs! No cat GIFs = no vote.

bigcdizzle
bigcdizzle Day 2,001, 09:25

Voted.

Bucephalus92
Bucephalus92 Day 2,001, 10:10

Its almost like working together will benefit everyone...whoa, what a strange concept in erepublik.

Strength and Honour

Gnilraps
Gnilraps Day 2,001, 10:27

I found the article by derphoof to be timely and especially well geared toward positioning the Feds as taking a lead on support. As such, it really also ought to result in a recruitment bump, which given the Fed support should be seen as a good thing by those in AIM.

In my opinion, much of the biteback from that article might have come from the assumption that was made in that article (and again is made in this article) that AIM cannot succeed without political support from the top 5 parties. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, as AIM could easily consider itself "successful" without the official support of a T5 party.

Again, continuing with my own opinion, I think it might be better stated that the military effectiveness of the eUS would better succeed if AIM were supported by the T5 parties. It is a somewhat narrow nuance I am drawing, but still an important one.

The first most important thing is that US-AIM is "supported" by the PoTUS. Whether or not one or another Party supports AIM is of less importance.

I honestly think it is more important to a Party that the Party support AIM than it is to AIM that a Party supports AIM.

Gnilraps
Gnilraps Day 2,001, 10:29

I voted the article because I value the discussion and because anything fg writes is deserving of a vote.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 13:28

Heh, I'll guess we'll see what the benefit is for parties. It hasn't won us any friends yet. Quite the opposite.

Time will tell, I suppose. But I remain confident that helping to bridge the gap between these groups is the right thing to do, especially considering the alternative.

Jude Conners
Jude Conners Day 2,001, 12:08

I cannot support a group who has "leaders" (I'm looking at you ST6) who ACTIVELY fights AGAINST the interests of our alliance.

We are a nation first.

The Original Hawkie
The Original Hawkie Day 2,001, 12:09

Country > Party > Self. That's all that should be said.

FunctionNine
FunctionNine Day 2,001, 12:51

Right. So better just to ignore them and maybe they will go away.

Sensible if high.

Cubby
Cubby Day 2,001, 14:15

Be sure to fight in Aquitaine and Apulia against Serbia tonight everybody! We've been there for over a week Hope you are too!

Marquis Andras
Marquis Andras Day 2,001, 14:16

Wait ST6 fights against the countries interest? How do I become ST6 again?

FunctionNine
FunctionNine Day 2,001, 12:51

Voted.

stewy
stewy Day 2,001, 13:22

"If US-AIM is going to succeed, they will need political help"

That would depend on your view of success and knowledge of US-AIM's goals. It could be successful without political support, whether it would be or not is hypothetical. A party trying to "help" it is not completely a bad thing... it does however start to change the dynamics of things in peoples eyes.

Aim wasn't created with politics in mind. Some people want it to be, some don't.. whether it will be or not is a question that the entity itself will figure out as future things develop. To me though, a party or parties showing their support and trying to assist it will only pull it more in the direction of being political, even if only by association and appearance.

Personally, as a longtime Fed member, I'd of liked to see the article about Aim of waited a bit. Aim's had only been around for 7 days when the statement was made, and though it hit the ground running and hasn't looked back, it's still very early in it's life. I think the intent of the Fed statement was to help it, but considering Aim just kind of dropped from the sky into the scene and people are still feeling each other out (Aim/Gov/public), it was to early to do so.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 13:40

Given the current PP race, I'm actually rather glad the party members got out in front of this. We have one candidate openly against the party supporting AIM in any way and another candidate that is a leader in one of the contributing MUs.

Regardless of who won, I think it would've tainted the sincerity of the message if such a statement came out after the election. Here we have an example of the party members voicing their opinions without the influence of their PP. Feels pure man.

stewy
stewy Day 2,001, 14:30

I disagree, I can't imagine that using a poll and the discussion around it as was done would be tainted by a pp regardless of which side the pp was on. A PP gets 1 vote.. though any pp has a bit of influence, people still vote how they feel. Unless the party is just sheep, which we both know is not the case... any discussion on any topic in the forum is always individuals voicing their opinions, and they make their own choices.

Either way, I hope it works out for all

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 16:27

I hope it works out for all of us...not just Feds. This does absolutely nothing for anyone if AIM doesn't want help and gov won't take it. But as we already have quite a few Feds working in gov, I know we're doing what we can.

Parties being bold is always risky and invites a ton of criticism (as you can see here...and elsewhere). But if you're not willing to take risks, I'm not sure why you'd bother playing at all.

Lemon Vodka
Lemon Vodka Day 2,001, 14:02

"If US-AIM is going to succeed, they will need political help"

Why?

Cubby
Cubby Day 2,001, 14:17

Great question. Good communication is helpful. But US-AIM is just a place where a bunch of independent MUs can work together. That's it. Politics be damned. (Not that there is anything wrong with the Feds "supporting" US-AIM. Cool!)

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 15:13

At some point, game mechanics have to become involved, I would imagine. I didn't think the point was to subvert all game mechanics and 'get around' the politicians. Perhaps I misunderstood?

Cubby
Cubby Day 2,001, 15:29

Definitely misunderstood. If I could subvert Plato I would have long ago. Every person clicks their own political buttons. I, and most other AIM COs I have spoken with are not desiring AIM to align with political parties or to start one. Each member may be politically active however they wish. The point is that politics will do what politics does, and AIM is not that. We're a bunch of independent MUs that click the red fight button... sometimes together. Keep rallying people for political reasons, and some of us will join you. AIM will keep rallying people for military ones. Hopefully, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

Delyruin
Delyruin Day 2,001, 14:13

I think people outside The Fed see it as some-sorta oppurtunistic attempted power grab?

Forgive me, but I know I do.

AIM doesn't need politics IMO.

Jude Conners
Jude Conners Day 2,001, 14:20

As I said before... it makes the Feds look smug and arrogant.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 15:14

Yes Jude...we all know. Get your cookie from Artela. You've been a good boy.

Jude Conners
Jude Conners Day 2,001, 16:55

LOL. Now check who VOTED for the comment.

Deepchill
Deepchill Day 2,001, 17:18

That was funny, where is your sense of humor? geez man.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 19:43

Is there something wrong with Deepchill?

biaxident
biaxident Day 2,001, 14:15

tbh I never felt being left out. I simply dont choose to play politics. I get the order I hit, simple as that.

some people however apparently felt like US-AIM needs a political wing.

the only difference US AIM has provided so far was fighting in battles that made sense and focusing damage on those battles so that overall our damage mattered.

why do we need to have some kind of an ulterior motive? why do some people assume as a member of ST6 I must feel like my voice is not heard and US-AIM is helping me to do just that?

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 19:58

I think people just make assumptions based on who gets out there and says things. They assume they speak for the group. There are a lot of factors motivating a lot of people in US-AIM. It's still new. Some want it to be political and some see a political movement as inevitable. I'm a point-and-shoot kind of player, but wars are fun. Not gonna lie.

The timing of US-AIM is serendipitous. There are so many other things happening that all point to ending Unity elections and actually being unified as a nation. Some are calling it 'jumping on a bandwagon' but I really think it's more like seeing how obviously we can help reach the same end.

People want meaningful war, meaningful elections and an end to the BS that makes this game not fun for people. US-AIM can help with that. So can other things. They all have to come together. That's what this is about.

Julian Caesar
Julian Caesar Day 2,001, 14:22

I WANT DEMOCRACY NOW!!!

Liquid Oxygen
Liquid Oxygen Day 2,001, 14:44

Yeah, this is just another typical powergrab, imo. It's rather disengenous.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 16:23

Still curious to find out what power we are grabbing. Sounds awesome.

Dogpyle
Dogpyle Day 2,001, 15:38

I don't wholly agree with all of your points, but it's still a very good article.

Voted.

Candor
Candor Day 2,001, 17:30

I have disagreed with you wrt Unity for most of that 8 months, ends not justifying the means, basically my position all through, or at least a seriously high cost and slow death if continued long enough.

But wrt the Feds choosing to endorse the idea/concept/group AIM and change, we couldn't be more in agreement. The nation needs something dramatic to change, needs a balance in the current political dynamic. If AIM shifts some semblance of power away from the power structures of the previous 8 months, AIM is likely going to be a positive for the nation.

For a party to say, as a group, the same thing, endorse that premise, who cares and why? People can endorse ideas, and so can groups of people (which is what a Party is).

To me, to be the first Party to state as much presents the Feds as leaders. Now, any Party can get on record as for, or against AIM. But they'll be followers as a body to do so now. The Feds led out of the gate on taking a position either way, officially.

I'm on record as supporting cooperation with the Executive as much as possible, we need a single voice to speak for the nation in primary internationally. But it's equally important that AIM remain independent. So I expect that AIM will make independent choices at times.

Anyway. Kudo's to FG and to the Feds for taking a position publicly. No one knows how AIM will turn out yet. But it represents a change from the status quo, and imho, very few have been happy with that status quo.


Voted in support of leadership (both FG's and Feds).

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 19:44

*dies of shock*

jadiv
jadiv Day 2,001, 18:09

From my point of view, I don't care if political parties or politicians support AIM or not. That is not the point. AIM members have vowed to defend the eUSA. In addition it is recognized in a (war) game that if war dies, the game dies; therefore, war is necessary even desirable.

It is obvious in the eWorlds alignment that Cot and TWO must be rivals for the game to be interesting. AIM members will press the issue between the adversaries whether pols support or don't. Coordination and cooperation can be useful, and that is all that we look for, at best, in support from parties, politicians or the government.

Seems to me parties and politicians are just jumping onto a bandwagon here that has proven at least somewhat successful on the battlefield,.Or at least has exposed TWO as weaker than was imagined by many that don't closely follow the military element of the game.

Take the current effort to return to Aquitaine. Coordination did not work. Whether it was an opponent that is learning to counter the RW barage, or coordination to the point that information leaked, I don't know. I do know there will be a time when a quickly reacting military force can again knock TWO backward, I will work within AIM to make sure we take advantage of that opportunity. Coordination with government will be attempted, but sometime speed is the key factor. Sometimes it is just a matter of government and politicians just following up when the opportunities present themselves. That really is all the support of the parties and politicians that is needed.

seeker1
seeker1 Day 2,001, 18:36

Or to put it bluntly, we don't care if parties or the government support us. We will continue our coordinated actions. Join us or not, as you wish.

Cyber Witch
Cyber Witch Day 2,001, 18:32

When I see this in an article:
"JCS split"
"JCS is involved"
"JCS split"
"JCS and other groups"
It shouts one thing to me, and only one thing. You, and most other people refuse to acknowledge us as we truly are. We are the eUS Military. Or eUS Mil for short. And you have absolutely NO intentions of trying to change. Period. Done. Finished. When people start using our proper name, THEN, and only then will I start listening to what you have to say. And if oldfags refuse to try to communicate with AIM because the eUS Mil is a member, well just what does that say about them? AIM has absolutely no issues werking with us. In fact we have been made warmly welcome in their group. If feels great knowing others stand beside us.

As for politics, we don't "need" politicians, but they do need us. Or more correctly our damage and our votes. When I see country>individual, I have to laugh. All I think each time that phrase is mentioned, is a desperate try by the polifags to try and gain control of yet another group they have no voice in. Maybe if they put the citizen first, the citizen would start helping them more. Communication is not a one way street. Communication is not barking orders and expecting ppl to jump.

Anyone is more than welcome to visit #US-AIM on Rizon and come talk to us. Regardless of military or political affiliation.

redbirdusa
redbirdusa Day 2,001, 18:35

Well said.

fingerguns
fingerguns Day 2,001, 19:42

No disrespect intended. Wasn't aware you don't like being referred to as JCS.

 
Post your comment

What is this?

You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.