The Economist ~ Rebuilding what we’ve lost
Day 941, 15:04
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please help the Economist, Vote and Subscribe
Dear friends,
The eUK is famous for a lot of things. It’s famous for its financial wisdom, it’s military organisation, the quality of leadership it produces and the mass organisation of society which we have undertaken. However we are also famous for our bickering, infighting and impenetrable political scene. Reading this, some of you are probably coming up with angry retorts. “Yes Iain, and you are the cause of this infighting in so many cases,” you say. And in many ways you’re correct. When beliefs are stated as truth, I offer alternatives. When people stand and refuse to budge, I move around them. When people try to stitch up results, I try to find loose threads.
Why do I do this? For two reasons: firstly, because challenging the status quo is what brings us growth, what develops us as a nation. Constant evolution of purpose needs to be matched with constant progression of procedures and constant building of capabilities. Secondly, because of the retention value of this obvious division. When you walk into a new situation, and it seems to you that you disagree with it, it can be difficult to voice that disagreement. Against the overwhelming weight of the body politic, it is hard for a new player to challenge the status quo, and only a few have done it. Opposition brings argument, and argument develops. It develops the people, it develops the society. So long as you recognise that argument is necessary and good, you can make it a good thing.
I think that one of the issues with British society is that at the minute we don’t recognise that. We see dissent as being a bad thing, opposition as being unnecessary. Someone suggests something that isn’t being done and people think of a hundred reasons why it shouldn’t be, rather than exploring the limits of the suggestion. When the UK first started buying up gun companies they said that doing so would destroy the economy. When the communes first opened they said that all other business would be destroyed. It’s easy to shoot down new ideas from a position of experience, but it’s much, much harder to take that idea and follow it to a workable conclusion.
And even if it never makes it, even if it ends up discarded on the proverbial rubbish tip of history, then the argument has proven that inaction is the correct course. This is a lesson we all need to learn. There is no such thing as being defeated in an argument. Whatever the result, the value is in the discussion, the exploration of the possibilities. The extension of this of course is that we accept that holding a different point of view isn’t a crime, and that opposing another point of view isn’t something which should be extended beyond the debate at hand. Too often in the eUK a perceived defeat or slight becomes a long time vendetta.
I’m not going to string this out. I’ll try to keep it simple. I’ve never held a grudge against anyone for something they’ve said in a thread about a point I’ve made. I might take offence if it gets personal, and make a judgement about your own strength of character, but I won’t think less of you next time we disagree on a thread. However, some people have started to see a disagreement in a thread as a permanent and personal vendetta. This is rubbish. The world is a complex place, and although simpler, the eWorld manages to retain a great deal of that complexity because of the human factor. Dishmcds and I have been weaving a thread of mutual antagonism and support through over a year of gameplay. At times we’ve clashed ferociously, and at other times we’ve backed each other to the hilt. Each time we find ourselves in a situation, whether united or opposed, we maintain respect for the others abilities, and occasionally knowledge of their weaknesses
The same can be said of dozens of other players. The message I’m trying to get across to the UK is that you can hate each other’s opinions in a thread, but don’t let that hatred take seed and become personal. When it does, you’ll find yourself sinking fast.
As a country we need to find our way back to the days when politics was for the good of the whole country. Where debates were met with resolve and elections with serious determination. Where players tried to convince the world of their opinion because doing so enriched the final solution, not because of a desire for personal advancement or role playing. This is something that can’t be legislated, can’t be proposed, and can’t be voted on. It’s something that everyone has to accept on their own terms, and I think if we do that we’ll be a stronger country at the end of it.
Dear friends,
The eUK is famous for a lot of things. It’s famous for its financial wisdom, it’s military organisation, the quality of leadership it produces and the mass organisation of society which we have undertaken. However we are also famous for our bickering, infighting and impenetrable political scene. Reading this, some of you are probably coming up with angry retorts. “Yes Iain, and you are the cause of this infighting in so many cases,” you say. And in many ways you’re correct. When beliefs are stated as truth, I offer alternatives. When people stand and refuse to budge, I move around them. When people try to stitch up results, I try to find loose threads.
Why do I do this? For two reasons: firstly, because challenging the status quo is what brings us growth, what develops us as a nation. Constant evolution of purpose needs to be matched with constant progression of procedures and constant building of capabilities. Secondly, because of the retention value of this obvious division. When you walk into a new situation, and it seems to you that you disagree with it, it can be difficult to voice that disagreement. Against the overwhelming weight of the body politic, it is hard for a new player to challenge the status quo, and only a few have done it. Opposition brings argument, and argument develops. It develops the people, it develops the society. So long as you recognise that argument is necessary and good, you can make it a good thing.
I think that one of the issues with British society is that at the minute we don’t recognise that. We see dissent as being a bad thing, opposition as being unnecessary. Someone suggests something that isn’t being done and people think of a hundred reasons why it shouldn’t be, rather than exploring the limits of the suggestion. When the UK first started buying up gun companies they said that doing so would destroy the economy. When the communes first opened they said that all other business would be destroyed. It’s easy to shoot down new ideas from a position of experience, but it’s much, much harder to take that idea and follow it to a workable conclusion.
And even if it never makes it, even if it ends up discarded on the proverbial rubbish tip of history, then the argument has proven that inaction is the correct course. This is a lesson we all need to learn. There is no such thing as being defeated in an argument. Whatever the result, the value is in the discussion, the exploration of the possibilities. The extension of this of course is that we accept that holding a different point of view isn’t a crime, and that opposing another point of view isn’t something which should be extended beyond the debate at hand. Too often in the eUK a perceived defeat or slight becomes a long time vendetta.
I’m not going to string this out. I’ll try to keep it simple. I’ve never held a grudge against anyone for something they’ve said in a thread about a point I’ve made. I might take offence if it gets personal, and make a judgement about your own strength of character, but I won’t think less of you next time we disagree on a thread. However, some people have started to see a disagreement in a thread as a permanent and personal vendetta. This is rubbish. The world is a complex place, and although simpler, the eWorld manages to retain a great deal of that complexity because of the human factor. Dishmcds and I have been weaving a thread of mutual antagonism and support through over a year of gameplay. At times we’ve clashed ferociously, and at other times we’ve backed each other to the hilt. Each time we find ourselves in a situation, whether united or opposed, we maintain respect for the others abilities, and occasionally knowledge of their weaknesses
😛
The same can be said of dozens of other players. The message I’m trying to get across to the UK is that you can hate each other’s opinions in a thread, but don’t let that hatred take seed and become personal. When it does, you’ll find yourself sinking fast.
As a country we need to find our way back to the days when politics was for the good of the whole country. Where debates were met with resolve and elections with serious determination. Where players tried to convince the world of their opinion because doing so enriched the final solution, not because of a desire for personal advancement or role playing. This is something that can’t be legislated, can’t be proposed, and can’t be voted on. It’s something that everyone has to accept on their own terms, and I think if we do that we’ll be a stronger country at the end of it.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voteeees
tl;dr
nice article 🙂
\o/ voted
I've never seen you be as diligently professional as you claim yourself to be in that first paragraph. You don't "offer alternatives," you offer insults. You don't "move around" people, you move through them. You're just about the most rude person I've come across in four nations; and not in a progressive way. You're crass, boorish, and know nothing if not how to foster division.
You've actually taught me a lot about how rude and childish I used to be.
This article is well written but it's also one of the most farcical things I've seen thus far in this game; considering who wrote it.
Exactly the sort of thing I was referring to 😁
Disagreements in game, resulting in personal attacks on me, resulting in misguided hatreds which last for months and achieve nothing.
I don't attempt to foster division, just offer alternatives. I'm certainly not crass or boorish, though often (such as in your case) people have responded to my comments by sending me rude and personal messages and insults. I just think that a lot of people respond to debate with childish insults and personal dislikes which they carry throughout the came, to their detriment.
I hope that one day you'll realise that I don't bear you any ill-feeling, and disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean anything beyond what it is: a disagreement on policy or politics.
oh keers
How about rebuilding the House of Lords that we lost!
Well I know we disagreed on that issue Jhorlin but that argument has been done and we've got a new act was almost unanimously supported. I think that's the definition of a good debate- when the dust settles something emerges that has the support of all parties 🙂
Keers, how do you feel about disbanding the military and PTOing the eUS?
A game without strong opposition isn't a game, really. I think people would be astonished to know that while we debate points in the UK, we're working side by side on most other things. 😉
I agree with Longbaugh ^.^
ladies and gentlemen, Iain Keers, the presidential candidate! ~_~
hm...I was hoping for a bit more 😛
There is an significant distinction between discussion and pure argument. We need to do less arguing.
In the past, you have dismissed people questionning the status quo (me in particular, and I held out strong to impose a three member party in the top 5 for over a few months.)
A headless party, the SDP managed, to get the eRight to fall back. With out 4 seats without a real campaign has settled SDP as the third biggest party in terms of electorate.
I'm willing to work with you on many portfolios, such as HoL, the economy and party cooperation. Our super-majority of 67% in Congress can be improved,as long as we have a decent national project to get the country fowards.
On this issue, I'm waiting on a PM on your behalf so we can start discussing this matter. A TUP-SDP-PCP coallition is assured to win all elections for a very long while.
Well I sometimes do defend the status quo that's true. But I don't think less of you for disagreeing with me. Which is what makes it a good debate and which is what moves the whole conversation forward 🙂
I maintain personal vendettas very consciously and very objectively. I don't get emotional about them, I just do them, because it's foolish to ever let someone cross you and get away with it. Sometimes I even maintain them with people I would actually like otherwise.
Quite how you've managed to attribute the UK's shittiness to arguments is below me - they're one of the most delicious parts of day-to-day eLife.
Maybe you just don't understand, maybe you never will, but the UK's flaw is that it's divided along political lines rather than along personal lines. So really the precise truth is the opposite of your point.
Division along political lines has cast the UK into a hell of subservience and irrelevance. And what's the only way to escape hell? You've got to kill the devil.
@ Iain Keers
Nice try, but I remember sending you an olive branch PM months ago and you just responded with "Who cares." Or, how about all of my articles in which you respond with terse jabs and zero collegiate insight?
Your ruse only works with those who aren't good friends with you AND who don't know any better. Anyone who knows me at all knows that my treatment of anyone and everyone is completely and wholly reliant on how they treat me.
JvB, remind me never to piss you off...
I've never seen Longbaugh so worked up... Geez Louise...
Longbaugh I'm afraid that doesn't wash. Minutes after I spoke to you the first time we disagreed about some RL stuff which had no relevance to the game, and you responded by sending me PMs full of RL abuse and hatred about Britain and insulted our armed forces. If I am reluctant to show you respect on a personal level its because you're always so angry and personal in every debate.
JvB I think you're wrong. Personality politics kills countries. It reduces it to a popularity contest where policy is shoved to one side and often that results in poor government. Also, you didn't read my article- I said that arguments were a good thing, so long as we held them in a dignified way and didn't resort to petty name calling and vendettas.
It's also a common argument to blame the UK's problems on political divisions- usually by people who don't have any convictions. I'm not going to argue with you in the comments, but think when was the last time you contributed something useful to the UK that wasn't spam or trolling in an article?
I'm all for a larger coalition between TUP, SDP and PCP.
A sain pacified participation of these three parties can be usefull overall for the nation.
Longbaugh, you can't hope to claim the moral highground by employing methods similar to those you accuse Keers of using - Although Keers is certainly guilty and some of those accusations in some cases - but then aren't we all?
And Melophore, my initial opinion of you has changed for the better over the past few weeks. I really admire what you've done with the SDP and look forward to more co-operation between our parties 🙂
While I disagree with many of your ideals Iain, I have to agree that right now the country needs to be strong and pull together. Sadly, Pensive hasn't got the message.
Voted and forgiven for being a TUPer.
Great article, the comments sum up the author.
I hope that this is a return to the Iain Keers of old, who did stand by these principles, rather than the rabid TUP/Phoenix fanboy who eventually emerged from the polite, intelligent guy I used to know.
That The Economist is back and cracking out these great articles is a sign that the old Iain Keers may be back!