Join the new world

[SFP] #RobG4PP
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2671112

Very exciting!

Many of your goals, and initiatives align with what I would like to see as well. It is truly a great thing to see candidates on the same page. Best of luck on your run!!

How do you think people come up with good ideas without drama and struggle?

I also note your opening statement can be interpreted as “If you can’t get along with everyone then sod off”. That’s pretty much what people did. There is no requirement anywhere in SFP’s meta documents that we have to agree with each other or even be nice about disagreements. When adults reach an irreconcilable difference, one of them normally excuses them self. That’s exactly what happened. It sounds like you want to force two disagreeing parties to get along because you don’t like conflict. That attitude isn’t going to get you very far.

I'm ok with the conflict, I just want people to respect other people's opinions. I completely understand if someone wants to leave the party based on another member's decisions. I cannot and will not force anyone to do anything that they don't want. I just want people's opinions to be appreciated by all, and rather than put someone down, be supportive and explain why there is a different approach for another idea. If you want to talk more about this, please mail me! I would love to hear your thoughts.

With all due respect, Rob, and I do not mean that ironically, I think it is the old members of the party who feel they are being disrespected who are leaving. I have good reason to believe that there are others who have not left but are unhappy. There is nothing wrong with a diversity of opinions, but while diversity and change are nice, you can't learn from history unless you know the history and pay attention to the people who were there. I will point out that I have not seen any public comments from members who have left that are meant to tear the party down. Perhaps that could tell you something about their respect.

Wow. Statements like “I just want people’s opinions to be appreciated by all.” show quite clearly to me that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Everyone is free to have an opinion and to express that opinion as long as it is not defamatory or bigoted/racist. That’s one of the fundamental pillars of any modern democracy.

What is not included in that freedom is freedom from dissent and ridicule. People holding absurd and/or factually incorrect opinions should be challenged and, if they persist, ridiculed. By way of example - people who believe the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary should be challenged at every opportunity. Their opinion about earth’s shape can still be expressed, but it should be given zero authority.

Your position also assumes that all opinions should be given equal weight. They should not. Opinions expressed by “subject matter experts” or people with first hand experience of an issue should be given more credence than opinions from “armchair experts” or general loudmouths.

I am not disagreeing with Rob, nor with you, nor kavman. What I am trying to point out is that the respect needs to go two ways, and based on my conversations with others who have left, as well as my own experience, people are leaving because they feel disrespected. Disagreement is fine. Every healthy relationship has disagreements. But if people are made to feel that their opinions do not count, they may very well prefer to leave the relationship. It can be a fine line between disagreeing and disrespecting. This, in my opinion, is an issue SFP needs to address in order to be successful. I like idealists. I am one. But if you aren't able to see all sides of a story, it is going to be difficult to change things for the better.

I agree with you MQ. I think we are all trying to say the same thing in a different way. Conversation can happen without it leading to disrespect. I can understand why people left the party, because they weren’t being treated properly, which is something I want to change.

I believe what he is attempting to say is that there is a way to dialogue with respect for others opinions. When we have a difference we should attempt to explain our point of view, and understand the opposite, if that is impossible then we explain why we believe differently. This is basic communications, we send, they interpret, they formulate a response, they respond, we receive, interpret, and the circle continues. dialogue is a two way street that if done improperly leads to nothing but dissent, and disrespect. We are all humans, and we all have our own thoughts and ideas. We must be able to communicate them properly to facilitate a republic.

Thats exactly what I’m trying to say. Everyone can have their opinion, but it can be said without negative words or attacking someone personally. Ilene you said it best, “Everyone is free to have an opinion and to express that opinion as long as it is not defamatory or bigoted/racist.” We are all one team here, and you can have your point across without being rude to the opposite person. This past term I’ve seen people from the party using negative words, and that is something I will not condone if I become SFP PP.

You missed what I was saying.

Everyone can have an opinion.

We shouldn’t listen to all opinions because some are just stupid. Like a flat earth.

Oops, Inused a negative word. Better go sit in the naughty corner...

You can use negative words. There’s a difference between using a negative word to make your point across and using a negative word on someone personally.

So your position has shifted in one reply? Slippery much?

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

I will also add that you haven’t addressed th heart of my criticism. Still.

Everyone can have an opinion. They shouldn’t all be given equal weight. Sometimes that’s because the opinion expressed is absurd. Sometimes it’s because the person expressing an opinion has particular skills or knowledge (or demonstrably doesn’t). Sometimes it’s because the person expressing the opinion has proven themselves completely untrustworthy, or a shill for others.

I understand what you’re saying Ilene. In my opinion, I think everyone’s opinions should be heard, no matter their expertise or past history on a certain topic. We can’t ignore them right away. I do get what you’re saying though. I think everyone’s opinions should be heard, and held at equal weight because if they aren’t, they’re being degraded and not feeling included. We can then decide which opinions can be entertained based on past experiences etc.

We are in fundamental disagreement then. I don’t think all opinions should be heard and held with equal weight. What is the point of gaining experience and skills if your considered opinion on a subject is ranked alongside the rawest of raw players or balanced against a known patsy and shill?

Like I said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think you’re laying many miles on that path...

Thanks for hearing me out. I think, regardless of expertise, a new member can see the problem at hand in a different perspective. If we continue getting the views of experienced players, etc then things will stay the same. We need room for improvement and a melting pot of ideas based on each individuals personal experience.

I know that some of the folks that left felt not only disrespected but that party leadership dismissed not only their thoughts on current changes to the party. But also that accomplishments in the past hold little or no value to the party now .

Those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it

Good luck!

I hope we can retain our diversity AND have fierce but civil debates in the SFP. Don't respect ideas or opinions but show respect for people, Stupid ideas must be exposed for what they are, but only if it can be done without disparaging each other we can act as one and make change possible.

We can disagree with ideas or opinions but we can be civil to have honest debates.

o7 good luck 🙂

Could you say a bit more about international involvement/collaboration, perhaps as a way to train folks about foreign affairs? Also curious if there is still any support for re-writing the Party constitution, and in particular for the proposals about forming a General Assembly structure/reforming the Revolutionary Committee?

The RC voted yes on the GA about 2 terms ago (Centomax PP), but no one ever did anything about it after that. I had mentioned it, but got ignored. If I get PP, I plan to enforce the GA that we voted on. I’m not all too familiar with foreign affairs, or how to go about it, but I want to build a strong foundation for the start of foreign affairs through SFP. Starting with something basic such as allowing citizens who get accepted into eUSA through IES to become a part of SFP, then we can interview/ask questions and understand how other countries do things.

Thanks for the reply.

One thing I'd note is that the General Assembly proposal means a fairly major change to the Party Constitution and would introduce a pretty significant change to the SFP... assuming it worked as intended and broadened the scope and institutionalization of inner-party democracy/syndicalism.

According to the Constitution, such as change should require broad discussion and support for a Constitutional change -- not just an RC affirmation, know what I mean? Like... not really a matter of enforcing a vote... is a matter of promoting the concept and organizing a vote of all "active' members. No doubt that is part of why it has taken some time to get traction on it.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, I should've been more specific. Once it was discussed by the RC, it was then brought up as a poll on the SFP forums to have members vote on this change and discuss this change. The vote did pass for the approval of the GA. I'm trying to look for the thread in the SFP forums, but i can't seem to find it.

I would support any comrades against Dominar. So good luck?

Good Luck Rob!

Well, that's rude.

GL Rob.

v20

Wishing you all the best. o>