Join the new world

This shouldn't be in the top 5, go vote something better, 'grats Gnil

---

At a certain point, our community is shaped not only by the policies we enact in the halls of our internet congress, but also the character of our leadership. A contest between WildOwl and Gnilraps, then, should be a difficult choice, both have successful CP terms under their belt, both are known and respected players. And yet, the choice this month couldn't be simpler.

WildOwl, over his career, and over this past month, has been incredibly honest. There's been very little fluff, nor campaign promises made without intent to follow through. When Tom Cauchon complained that WO did not seek out the SFP endorsement with the same vigor they had expected, the response was perhaps not perfect, but it was at the very least simple and honest.

There's a quiet integrity that WildOwl has displayed. It's admirable and what we should expect of our leaders. This isn't a grand political contest, this is a small online community. We should elect candidates who speak to us honestly, and will lead as the first among equals, not as internet-power-brokers looking for pawns. This publication will proudly put its faith in WildOwl. You know what you're getting: good governance and quality leadership.

The Gnilraps campaign, on the other hand, juxtaposes bleakly. It has been a campaign rooted in manipulation and inexplicable bombast. That anyone is willing to allow such a "respected" player to run such a campaign is difficult to understand.

Let's analyze some of what has been written in support of his campaign. As a case study in his questionable use of rhetoric, let's draw on some of his most direct explanations of his campaign from a question thread on the AMP subsection of the forums:

The best explanation I have for this should be fairly obvious, I joined SFP. I would not have dreamed up the idea had I not joined a group of people who is more or less constantly talking about how much they'd love to see the Dictatorship disappear. As I've said, I don't agree with them about its disappearance

So, the stated goals of the Gnilraps campaign are appeasing those against the Dictatorship for a term, while simultaneously standing by the existence of the institution itself? If this sounds contrived, that's because it emphatically is. Though having been asked in several forums to explain the benefit of one or two months without a dictatorship, as opposed to simply opposing the institution, Gnilraps has yet to give anything close to a satisfactory answer. Congress apparently agrees with this assessment, voting dramatically against legislation proposed to make Gnilraps' stated goals viable, as do many members of the BSP, who, while opposed to the dictatorship, seem at least equally confused by this proposal. Perhaps Gnilraps' balancing act rests on the fact that until quite recently, he condemned those who opposed the dictatorship in Congress as collectively sticking their "thumbs up their asses," which, while condescending to those who now support him most fervently, seems to have had little impact on his current nebulous speechifying.

Speaking of rhetoric, Gnilraps continues to assert, in the comments to an article published by a member of the SFP, that,

This election is a form of referendum on the true strength of the eUSA Forums. Is the meta-community that resides there (in which I am and have been a major participant) more or less influential than the proletariat?...I am perfectly comfortable being part of a group that runs decidedly counter to the groupthink parties (Feds/USWP/WTP) which are basically three different varieties of vanilla.

When asked to clarify, and accused, by the editor of this fine paper, of parroting "bullshit," Gnilraps countered that,

...You're getting a little heated now and starting to make some conspicuous exaggerations.

My comment doesn't "decry" the forum. I stated that we would see how it compares with the proletariat. And since that term seems to have set you off...I'll change it to "rank-and-file populace."

As for my "groupthink" and "vanilla" comments, I fail to see why it would piss anyone off to have a member of one political party criticize some others. The fact is that if we were to diagram the top parties, you'd end up with three parties pretty much in the same vicinity as one another, then BSP way off somewhere else, then SFP way off somewhere else. Again, must we whitewash words? ...let's just watch how the parties vote on this, shall we?

Well. That is a lot to take in. Let's deconstruct that a bit.

First, as for tone, while the comments of this paper's editor and those challenging Gnilraps perhaps were taken as hostile, they would be more accurate characterized as confounded. When a respected member of the community begins to metamorphose into an unrecognizable modern-day Cleon, or perhaps a more apt comparison is Artela, the rational and expected reaction is not that of resigned amusement, but rather confrontation. Gnilrap's tone, however, is that of condescension. It's an effective, yet insulting, tool of rhetoric to accuse one's opponents of hysteria, or being "heated" and easily "set-off." Additionally, Gnilraps seems to conflate a rather basic use of synonym, and highlighting of subtext, with "conspicuous exaggeration."


^{Putting this here, for example, is me using subtext.}

Moving on to content, there are certain gems that should not be left unexamined. Particularly, the instance where Gnilraps believes terms such as "proletariat" and "rank-and-file" to be objective, truly shines. The former, particularly absurd in this context, is defended, in Gnilraps' words, as simply an "SFP-ish" term. Positioning active players who oppose the eUS forums, who Gnilraps truthfully refers to, as the downtrodden "proletariat," or even "rank-and-file," engaged in a righteous struggle against some high tower of elites and presumably free-masons, is incredibly dishonest. This is an egregious lie coming from someone who demonstrably knows better. That Gnilraps then feels himself in the position to accuse others of "white washing words" is telling of the style (i.e. hypocrisy) of this campaign.

Similarly Gnilraps "[fails] to see why it would piss anyone off to have a member of one political party criticize some others," in response to a request for an apology in his condemnation of three of America's top 5 parties. First, this is a clear strawman, criticism among party members tends to not upset any social arrangemnet. Gnilraps, however, is not an ordinary party member, he is a former member of all of these parties, and a Presidential candidate. Furthermore the criticism is a lie. Many of these "groupthink" parties have a more diverse primary tally, and frequently congressional voting record, than the independent minded parties Gnilraps had in mind do. His response, that "diagramming" the parties proves his point is somewhat meaningless given he gives no qualifications to diagram on. Perhaps on self-reported feelings of ostracism, though this publication would argue those are fed not by substance or content, as Gnilraps repeatedly contests, but rather by the victim-hood narratives Gnilraps peddles to win support.

Finally, in response to his last point, "let's just watch how the parties vote on this, shall we?" Well, now we have. The three parties Gnilraps condescends to as "flavors of vanilla" have shockingly voted to support WildOwl. So has the BSP, a party that has proven itself to value honesty and principle over the slime and confused policy promises exuded from the Gnilraps camp.

This election is quite simple, though hopefully in a month or two we'll see that this was a joke, some elaborately misguided foray into demagoguery rather than the elaborately misguided political scheme it seems to be. On the other hand we have an option to reelect a proven and honest candidate. That I'll be voting for WildOwl goes without saying. That you should as well, regardless of party or politics, is simply common sense.


^{This isn't subtext, just a movie I like}