Moving Toward the Middle
Day 3,061, 05:55
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Gnilraps
Get Behind the Mule (Mandatory listening)
Day 3061 of the New World
April 7, 2016
I've made no bones about the impetus for my interest in the SFP Presidency.
I want to see if SFP is interested in a slight shift in the direction of the Center.
I say, "slight", because I do not want to see anything change in the heart and soul of this Party. I believe eUSA needs a home for radicals and rabblerousers. I am convinced that rage is part of the very energy core of SFP. That is not what I am suggesting should change.
When I say "slight shift", all I am really talking about is a pledge to the membership of SFP that we will place a full slate of Congressional Candidates.
Please understand that I am NOT fond of blacklisting. With the only exceptions being the two most famous criminals in eUSA's history, I have not and will not support Blacklisting.
To me, it makes sense to blacklist someone who is a spy and has proven themselves to be interested in selling privileged information to enemy entities. We've seen this happen and Blacklist seemed appropriate.
However, Blacklisting a group of people who are using legitimate gaming strategies to effect positive change on the eUSA environment - even if such individuals may be wrong about the positiveness of their change - is foolish and a form of violence. (Note to trolls: I said "form" of violence, not actual physical violence. Find something else to criticize.)
Anyway, that is a whole lot about Blacklisting, but for a reason.
The political enemies of SFP wield the "Blacklist" as their ultimate weapon of power against what they disagree with.
And they can.
Which is why I believe there are only two paths SFP can take if it wants actual power in eUSA. (In a moment I will describe a third path - one that I believe SFP is taking.)
First, SFP could become true enemies of the entire balance of eUSA's population. SFP could regard BSP, WTP, FED, and USWP as the "enemy" and plot the kinds of maneuvers that rob them of all power. This would necessitate a total PTO of eUSA including, ironically, installing an SFP Dictator and defending that Dictatorship against the rest of eUSA. This would probably also necessitate climbing into bed with some foreign powers who are also currently at odds with the ruling class in power. As you can see, this solution amounts to a massive rebellion. It would be very interesting, very expensive, very taxing of our time and energy, very fun, very courageous, mostly nuts, and I am not interested in it at all.
Second, SFP could work within the current system to affect change. There is no way to do this without placing Congressmen on a monthly basis. We not only need a full slate of actively participating Congressmen, but we also need to be able to forge political alliances on key matters (for instance: SFP support for another Party's SoH candidate) so that our legislation does not simply fail without any outside support. This path requires a slight capitulation. It means that the manner in which we select Congressmen must change. Other candidates for SFP PP have sworn to run Blacklisted citizens for Congress. I honor that pledge, as it is allegiant to our current system. The shift toward the middle I am proposing is that I will pledge to our Party to NOT run Blacklisted citizens regardless of how our SFP Primary shakes out.
Why would I run a PP campaign that openly rejects one of the tenets of our Party Constitution?
Because we stand the greatest chance of unBlacklisting our people if we actually have Congressmen who can actually vote to unBlacklist them.
Because we stand the greatest chance of achieving other meaningful reforms if we are participating in the system that so many of us find corrupt. If a Coup d e'tat is unacceptable (and if that is what SFP wants, it should definitely not look to me), then a coup de vent is needed. And the gale wind I want to see is an influx of SFP Congressmen dedicated to reform.
I spoke of a third way - a path which I believe SFP is already on.
This is the way of noise. And I do not mean, "noise" in a negative connotation. I mean that we have chosen neither a violent overthrow nor the strong wind of change. Instead we have chosen to fight our battles in the Media.
Media is great. SFP has tremendous activity there. In one sense, you could argue that SFP is "winning" the media, though others could argue the point and it isn't an argument I would care to engage. My point is that SFP is a loud voice. We are making noise. Successfully. For a long time now. And our opponents are content to let us make Media noise. Because it isn't getting us anywhere.
SFP, our current path is the status quo.
We can keep tossing up lists of Blacklisted Congressmen.
We can keep publishing articles about how wrong it is to be Blacklisted.
We can keep reiterating our agenda of freedom of thought.
And we can remain powerless.
In case you were not aware, Congress was very close to passing a law that would auto-censure the entire slate of a Party's Congressmen if that Party ran a Blacklisted Congressman. I am willing to assume that those who authored and supported that bill would like to see it succeed and may be looking for renewed support for it - support that they may easily find if SFP runs afoul again.
As expected, you are being offered some legitimate choices for PP this term. Since I have chosen a controversial campaign, you will find significant difference between what I am offering and what any other candidates are offering.
I don't believe this election is about choosing a person. It isn't so much "Gnilraps" that I want you to consider. I believe this election is about choosing a path.
I am proposing a path that to me seems wisest for SFP.
If you disagree, then you will vote for another candidate.
If you agree, then you will not just vote for me, but I hope you will also volunteer to participate in SFP politics.
(Custom) Tracker courtesy of Mike Ontry's Hit Tracker.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled clicking
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Vote for a centrist form of revolution
whoever wins should definitely explore these options.
What I still don't understand is why any group should allow another, wholly external, group wield power over the first group's internal decisions.
Hosting the "meta-congress" (ugh...) at a certain forum was a conscious choice. It can be moved with another conscious choice.
Better yet, it could be moved back in game. There ain't no third party that can dissemble and gerrymander to stop a vote down party lines from succeeding when it's held in game.
They cannot wield power. SFP is completely at liberty to not change a thing. Congress - on the Forum - cannot stop SFP from running an entire slate of Blacklisted candidates.
The questions of moving Congress from the eUSForums is an ancient one. I welcome anyone to take up that battle, but I am personally convinced it will never happen, so I do not take up that fight.
Instead, I am proposing a change in our strategy. What I am running on is a conscious strategic shift in how we go about interfacing with our opponents. My plan enables us to interface with them in the only arena that offers us a chance for actual change (other than coup d'etat).
I never said you were wrong. It is easier and faster to effect change from the inside, rather than ranting and huffing and puffing from the outside. 🙂
That said, a change to the constitution as you suggest is a submission of sorts. With no conciliatory offer from "the other side". Suddenly we would be negotiating from a position of weakness, not as nominal equals. Could we achieve the same outcome by changing "regulations" rather than "legislation"? By asking blacklisted players to not nominate, in the interests of the party?
I also don't think you've thought through the consequences of your change from "the other side". SFP is a minority. All parties are, really. A particularly effective congress rep from SFP could be blacklisted on some trumped up charge (FF medal chasing and fighting for North Korea?). Trial by kangaroo court and suddenly we cannot run an effective member. Maybe you just have more faith in people than I do...
Giving external groups a clear and visible lever to every power over us is not wise, from my current understanding of things.
I hear you.
The "kangaroo court" problem technically exists for all parties, not just SFP.
If I could use an (admittedly weak) analogy, it would be as if 4/5 of the population agreed that Baseball games should be 9 innings and should be 3 outs per side per inning.
Then 1/5 of the population says, "No! I want Baseball games to be 7 Innings with 4 outs per side per inning. This would only introduce two extra innings per game, improve the strategic value of each inning, etc. etc."
Then, when 4/5ths say, "No, we will stick with 9/3/3", the 1/5 say, "fine, but when one of us is on a team, we want to still follow the 7/4/4 plan."
Then when the 4/5 say that, "no thanks, we don't want that problem so we are going to pass a law that prevents the 7/4/4 people from trying to join the team," the 1/5 folks have a choice to make.
I think that is where we are at.
I don't think the 1/5 people have such horrible ideas. I also don't think the 4/5 people are such massive jerkoffs. But in our case, the 4/5ers do wield enough power to render the 1/5 effectively 0/5. That is what I want to avoid.
absolutely no relevance to game...
numbers from elections do not reflex membership of parties and you can easily get elected without a current SPFer voting for you.
do not feel too bad, I believe the SPF forum allows them to consider someone else PP. The real issue, are the separate games being played, and eRepublik will keep losing as long as the likes of you continue to play offsite.
"Which is why I believe there are only two paths SFP can take if it wants actual power in eUSA."
What is actual power? I've seen you wield your pretend power, I gave you an idea you thought great (I got cuckold for it), you ran with it (no input from anyone else) and it is gone now....
I really think you are after what you can't buy from the Admins, and are to stupid too realize ruining the game for others doesn't get you anything either....
George, in this case the "power" I am talking about is an effective voice in the place where the decisions get voted on that affect the eUSA environment. Or to be more clear, "Power" means "votes". As long as we run Blacklisted candidates, we are throwing our votes into the trash. We may be doing it on "principle", but we are throwing them away nonetheless.
How does being in the majority change the majority?
Unfortunately we have only RL to draw on for actual experiences. In VA, we elected the first black governor in US history. If he did as he was told (wait his turn) another state would have that distinction.
You seem to be telling the only opposition voice to be quite, but why?
I think I'm doing the opposite. I think that by running Blacklisted Congressmen, we are quieting ourselves.
Perhaps think of it this way. With an active SFP Congressional delegation, the opposition is 4/5ths of the power structure and we are 1/5th, a position we can potentially leverage. With an inactive (censured) SFP Congressional delegation, the opposition is 4/4ths of the power structure and we are 0/4ths. That is sort of what is happening.
I do not propose SFP changes its stance on ANYTHING.
I propose that SFP changes HOW it fights for its stance.
Your WHO(LE point seems to be, no more blacklisted candidates, which means, no more activities that would cause being blacklisted...
Words in an online again now are to speak louder than actions?
Your election hinges on non SPFers voting you in ;p
Gl mate. Ilu no homo
I agree that for the most part running blacklisted citizens for congress is throwing our vote away. Not entirely though. By running the occasional blacklister it sends a message to congress that we choose to play eRep or way and not bow to the eUS forums.
Gnil I consider you a great friend in this game and no matter where my vote falls that won't change for me. I do not, however, think that the SFP constitution needs changing. If elected PP I would expect you to follow it and run a blacklister if that is what the party decides. I would support you in trying to convince our members that voting for nonblacklisters in our party primary is the best course of action.
If I were elected, I would NOT run blacklisted candidates.
I think changing the constitution is something that should be done too.
Also, I appreciate your friendship, as I do with any and all I count as friends in this game. As you can see I am presenting my ideas here above board in a way that I hope will swing our Party in a slightly new direction. If I fail at that, I accept it as a failure of my ideas. That's all I really want, is to try my ideas against the prevailing ideas.
On a loosely related note:
Those who are tossing insults by pointing at me as a major cause of the problem (from the December events) are, as you know Phil, massively underinformed about how and why those events transpired. You and the rest of SFP leadership know why we did what we did, you all know the entirety of the forces that were behind it all, and you know precisely what my role was. I do hope that those in SFP who were NOT privy to the various discussions and decisions that were made will ignore the troll voices and at least allow my ideas here to be considered with a clean slate.
Lastly I will say it here and then I will repeat it in my next article:
I do NOT want ANY votes from outside of SFP.
If I feel like that is the direction this goes, I will bow out. I want my IDEAS to succeed, idgaf about ME being PP.
Very true about how the December uprising came about Gnil. As I recall I actually was going to run as a lark more than anything else. After discussion we ALL decided that Gnil had better name recognition and if we were going to run a protest candidate he should be it. Gnil then accidentally won. First I do not see a "downfall" of our party then or now, but if some do, it was ALL of us, not just Gnil that did it.
Furthermore, Gnil had zero to do with Bear Cavalry launching he dictator topple. Not financially or otherwise. Other than running on a platform of a dic-less month he had nothing to do with that part of things. Those that want to bash Gnilraps should really get your stories straight.
the SFP PP is first among equals, I find the idea of him infringing upon the basic democratic right of any member to express himself politically as utter heresy.
I think you are overstating things a bit, but OK.
ikr
I do think it is a good effort you are doing Gnilraps, but only for the debate and improvement of SFP.
I do not want SFP to stop running blacklisted members only because on the eUSA forums they blacklisted fine members of eUSA. When members would be blacklisted because they are enemies of eUSA I would not want them on the list of SFP.. Now many are blacklisted not because they are enemies of eUSA but only because they believe in different policies. As long as the eUSA meta congress is doing such things I think SFP should fight the blacklisting of fine eUSA citizens and because of that we better stay outlaws.
Point of order, I guess. What part of the SFP Constitution is it that folks are talking about changing? Splitting hairs, I know, but Brother Gnil, you are proposing some kind of amendment right, along the lines of "the Chair of the RC will move blacklisted candidates to the bottom of the list" rather than changing the current text? And I guess inter-related with that, this is ultimately a kind of instruction to the PP regarding mechanics, right? In other words, the PP cannot prevent anyone from putting their name forward as a candidate; they can only organize the List in a certain way. Is that right?
Also, thanks for raising this debate. I think it is an important one for the SFP and it is being carried out mostly in a dignified and respectful way. Good on yiz.
Although I don't think we need to rewrite our Constitution, I do believe the SFP MUST stop running members that are Blacklisted. Though I hate the Blacklist the fact remains it exist and the SFP cannot effect change if we throw away Congressional votes by electing Blacklisted members.
As far as moving 'Meta Congress', until there is either a 'new' forum that wishes to host it or a way to run Congress in game is found I have to sadly agree with Gnilraps that it will never happen.
As a Blacklisted member the courageous thing to do is stand down and help the party in other ways, like campaigning for SFP candidates in the Media, Multi Hunting or recruiting new members.