Can we just talk civilly for a moment?
•
by Whiskey Jack
It has been an eventful 48 hours here in eUSA. We have seen a lot of rhetoric being thrown around, most of which breaks down into either “OMG EVIL FOREIGN DICTATOR IMMINENT” or “OMG TREASONOUS ELITES WANT TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM”. The simple fact is that we have been handed a ridiculous new game mechanic, and we have to figure out what to do about it. Ignoring it won’t make it go away, and screaming at each other isn’t going to help any either. So what do we do?
I think it is time we had a reasonable debate, if such a thing is still possible. Yes, I know that the posts from congress look bad. I know that the posts that were leaked from SCI also look really bad. But I also know that the people in SCI and congress were genuinely just trying to find a solution to what they saw as a threat that needed attention. Perhaps it was handled poorly, but it is something that needs to be addressed. I do not agree with the chicken little crew that believes the threat is so great we need immediate action without ironing out the problems, but I also do not agree that this was a nefarious plot by a group of elites salivating over the potential to solidify power.
Aramec and broforce handed us a potential solution if we are willing to see it. Although it is really expensive, and some would say prohibitively so, we can utilize a civil war to buy time to have a reasonable debate about how best to handle this problem. As smee wrote, the potential for a foreign dictator to cause great harm is very real in the current game mechanics. The best defense may very well be to preemptively install our own dictator, at least until the mechanics are changed. There are issues with installing a dictator of course. Where are our taxes sent? Who holds the money for the armed forces? Who runs the USAF? How do we deal with elections? These are all things that deserve public hearing before we hastily move on this, if only to try to avoid what may become an irreparable rift in our country.
So let’s talk about it like reasonable people. Leave the torches and pitchforks at home, and maybe even play nice for a day or two. Otherwise our divisions are going to make us an even more tempting target.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
First for discourse.
Smee's excellent dictatorship article here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-smeekileaks-how-to-destroy-a-country-for-dummies-2500883/1/20
\o/...for the cojones....
BTW voted....
o7
No matter what, defending against a Foreign Dictator Takeover (FDT) is the strongest and most honorable way to defend freedom and democracy, using it as an excuse to violently take over America is as low as PTOing a party and we all know how everybody feels about that.
😒taring@mrarundel:
We may not have sufficient resources to deal with a well organized and well funded threat. We can head it off by installing our own "dictator", but if that is not acceptable we need a realistic alternative. Do we raise our taxes now in order to attempt to build up a serious financial capacity to fund a resistance? Playing solely on the hope that our resolve and love of freedom is enough to fend off a threat seems like a flimsy shield.
So the 15-20 million in Reserve for just such an occasion won't do?
Is America not well organized and well funded? Is not the most powerful MU in America a privately funded unit?
Can Wild Owl not craft a Foreign Policy with our friends and allies to help protect America?
We are not well organized in any real sense. As for the 15-20 million in reserve, consider what our enemies and their allies might be willing to throw at us in order to gain 15/15, a large tax base, and the satisfaction of holding us down more securely than a wipe through traditional means.
[removed]
Then maybe it is time for some of the 'cash cows' who have rested on past achievements and lived off the government teat to do the patriotic thing and help finance keeping America safe for freedom and democracy....
Shit, bust out that plastic: Mon'Amie...
:againstaring@mrarundel:
I have no doubt that there will be a few players willing to break out the Visa if we have a takeover attempt. But is that really what you want to rely on? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really am looking for solutions. So please, leave individuals out of this and let's focus on things we can do in game to try and make something work.
America has always been militarian strong, America have always had excellent planners; Wild Owl has supposedly built a very strong Foreign Affairs and yet the only thing these great minds can think of is violent overthrow of America?
I admit I know little of strategy and tactics in this game, but isn't that what SCI, the Commanders of MUs and Wild Owl are supposed to be doing?
Isn't that why America elected them?
Oh, right: America didn't elect them Unity did....
So if I am reading you correctly, and please feel free to let me know if I am not, you are proposing that we need do nothing at all in order to meet any threats from a hostile coup attempt. We have all of the necessary elements in place, and our resources are sufficient. Is this correct?
I am saying that supposedly we have citizens in positions of power whose job is to protect America, I am saying we should do everything politically and militarily -both foreign and domestic- to defend our freedom and democracy; I am saying if all of the necessary elements are not in place, and our resources are not sufficient then those same citizens need to be working on getting that accomplished -NOW.
Instead they conspire to violently overthrow America.
Just for the record, no "violent overthrow" was ever proposed.
What was proposed was a peaceful installation of a benevolent dictator as a favorable defense against a violent overthrow by an evil dictator.
That's all it has ever been about.
Voted
Thank you. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Pretty much the same as you tbh, just that coup attempt in the name of iDIOt was just plain stupid.
you may think that, Deepchill, but I'm afraid you're missing the bigger picture
If your point was to show people how easy it is to start a CW against the eUS and expose that weakness, it was still dumb.
still nope
Every attempt at discourse seems to be met with sa/as/yyyyyy/sheepfuker/shutup/whatever. Seems like that is the new normal. Troll til you win. I assume Plato will make a decoration for it eventually.
I'm definitely open to suggestions, and I will not meet them with trolling. How would you suggest that we deal with this new game mechanic?
Plato making a Troll decoration is like a super idea btw!
Thank you
I just could not stand on the sidelines shaking my head any longer.
The greatest trick the american elites ever pulled was giving there people the illusion of choice.
It seems like a shame that you are not MDP anymore, being a real dictator and all.
I find it a shame your fear mongering your nations people having the reserves and soldiers that you do.
That is exactly why I am trying to have a civil discussion. I do not like the atmosphere of fear that has been created, but I also see the need to address the issue at hand.
No your right as Long as there's no dictatorship in place there will always be a hovering threat as you only have a 3 hr window of warning.
I'm sure a nation of your size could easily organize and fund a strong defence especially with Govt and private funds united.
So if we have a dictator... no one will ever attack us and win? Come people which one is the better one to go with or does it really matter? Main thing is to have the gold and money else where and then fight to protect what we have until we can not ... then what? Last time we surrendered and the world went on.
And we were back doing what we do.
The thing that is different is that now a victor can change our laws, mpps, taxes, etc. rather than subjecting us to a wipe, and we are no longer any harder to conquer because of our 50 regions than any other country. Do you propose that we need do nothing at all because of these changes? Or do we need to think about our security differently?
The last time we surrendered the game mechanics were different: They could not collect any taxes from us, and they could only reduce our production by 50% due to the loss of bonuses, not 100% like jacking up work tax would. Hence, when we offered money in exchange of our independence, our enemies agreed.
This time they will have both all our income, and the ability to deny us any production whatsoever. In such a case, we can only rely on a single attempt at liberation, burning everything we have. If we succeed, great. If we fail, we will have to change citizenship just to be able to work in our companies. That's what is different.
Seeing as how you propose that a dictatorship is the most prudent way to secure ourselves, what do you propose we do in order to ensure our countries finances are secure from potential abuse? Similarly, how would you propose we secure the USAF?
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by security of our finances?
If you mean security from outside threats, the only way to do that is to prevent an enemy dictator at all costs, but I think this is not what you mean.
I think you mean how we secure our finances from potential abuse by the dictator. Actually, the only thing that would change under the new system would be that it would be the CP instead of the congress who makes a 400k donation from the country treasury to the CBO org whenever the money accumulates. Given that it is a mechanical job, the CP/dictator would be responsible to only send the money to the CBO org. If he does something else without direct command from the congress, that would be grounds for impeachment. We can codify this.
As for what we can do beyond legislation, the obvious answer is to make sure (1) the CP/dictator gives account access to trusted individuals (2) most money is held in the CBO org rather than the treasury under normal circumstances. An exception would be gathering CC in the treasury for an airstike, or gold for a declaration of war.
With respect to USAF, Josh Frost had a nice suggestion: Let the dictatorship MU be a one person MU so that the CP/dictator does not have control of the USAF MU as well in the case of going rogue. In addition, a special law can be passed such that the control over USAF is given to the congress or the CP candidate with the second highest vote count in the CP elections if the congress impeaches the CP/dictator in the meta-congress.
Yes, I did mean to ask how we handle potential abuse by the installed dictator. I would also ask how to handle the USAF. Do we leave it as is, with the dictator holding the commander's seat? Or do we pass that off to another? I would also like to ask how you envision congressional elections procedure under a dictatorship.
Congressional elections under the dictator proceed as they usually are under the current system game mechanics-wise. The only difference is that the congressmen do not get the 5 gold they usually do. They would be elected the same way, and added to the meta-congress the same way.
In the case of USAF, I think Josh Frost's idea I mentioned in the previous post has merit.
Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.
In the case of CP elections, would we need to utilize tax funds to overthrow the current CP and then install the incoming CP? If so, do you think that our current tax income is sufficient to cover this as well as all of our existing operating expenses and reserve deposits?
The problem I see with legislating all this stuff, every time someone loses the political advantage the laws get repealed or changed....
That's why we could (and should) make those laws amendments.
We will only need to spend 200k once to install the first CP as the dictator. After that, all the incoming CPs will move to the old CPs MU; the old CP will transfer MU commander status to the new CP, which automatically makes the new CP the dictator.
I did not realize that the dictatorship is bound to the MU commander position. Thank you for that insight.
Since the dictator will be in a one man MU rather than in USAF, would you agree to hold the necessary funds for removal of an impeached dictator and the installation of a new dictator in the USAF in game MU account as a transparent emergency measure? Or do you see an issue with that suggestion?
That money could be held by the CBO officers as is usually done.
Sorry I forgot the main point: Given all these advantages, they would have no incentives to accept any surrender. The longer they keep us down, the more money they will reap out of us.
I won't endorse this article because that seems to be something frowned on these days. Great to see some reasonable discussion.