[TRG] Changes

Day 3,230, 18:48 Published in USA USA by J.A. Lake



Oh, man. Talk about a perfect time to come back from an extended break.

I find the SFP (and yes, I shall continue to call it the SFP) under the control of Cerb following a controversial PP election that saw Tom Cauchon bowing out. This much I know.

What concerns me is this article. It is tremendously unsettling to read this coming from a Party President of the SFP. Let us break it down.

Campaign Promises

I will begin with a party-wide survey of the membership, assessing members' values and goals. What do YOU want? Why are YOU here? What would make YOU play more often?

I will leave no stone unturned and all options will be on the table. Where will we go from here? What will we become? What changes will we cause?

These are questions for YOU, the member of SFP, the player frustrated with the status quo.


This excerpt comes from the article Cerb published campaigning for the SFP Chairmanship. The issue should immediately be apparent: From the first to the last they were violated. Changes were made as the survey came out, leaving no room for input from the rank-and-file. Stones were left turned- in fact, stones were walked over during a headlong charge for unilateral change.

Lifelong members of the SFP awoke in a party with an entirely different name, with a crudely-edited info section. Our emblem has changed as well, from the logo of the SFP to a meme. None of this was the result of a survey, least of all an assessment of our values.

The Top-Down Rebellion

The most contentious part of this article, in my opinion, is as follows:

I'm told the modern SFP doesn't allow anything forbidden by its forum constitution.
I'm told the modern SFP must admit anyone even known traitors.
I'm told the modern SFP only permits opinions which are anti-Pfeiffer and anti-eUSAforums.
I'm told the modern SFP frowns on collaboration with the USWP, AMP, and Federalists.
I'm told everything associated with the eUSAforums is elitist and evil.


Oh boy, where to begin.

Our Constitution is not beyond reproach, in fact anyone can recommend a change to it at any time. Of course we abide by it- what point is there in its existence if it is optional? The SFP Constitution is maintained as a living document that changes as needed. Due to the democratic nature of the changes it is less a shackle than a popularly-maintained guideline.

The SFP, like any party, is entirely incapable of forbidding any player from joining the Party. To say we must allow traitors to join is true- it is enforced by game mechanics. So must the USWP, Federalist Party, AMP, BSP, and everyone else. What issue do we have here that any other party does not?

To say the SFP commands anti-Pfeiffer, anti-eUSAforums opinions is absurd and insulting. The SFP has never attempted to control the opinions of its members on an official level. This time last year I was a very vocal opponent to Jude Conners' run for the Presidency, publishing articles that without a doubt weakened his CP run. Was I ever told to be silent? My opinions ran contrary to the majority of the party's at the time, after all. No! Jude surely was upset with me, but never did he attempt to silence me. Our respect for the freedom of expression is and always has been absolute.

Collaboration with other parties is taken on a case-by-case basis. In my time in Congress I've worked in a five-party group to discuss amnesty, worked with Feds and Black Sheep and just about anyone who came to me with a question. Again, how often was I frowned at? Never! This is still another accusation with no factual basis. Do we tend towards not cooperating with the USWP, Federalists, and others? Yes, of course- they have very different ideology than we do. Do we work with them when it comes down to it? Yes, of course!

Do we say everything associated with the eUSAforums is elitist and evil? Yes, we do. Here you have found some measure of solid ground. If you mean to tell me that this position is itself elitist or evil, I direct you to read some of the hateful, vitriolic things said in Congress. If you cannot ascertain the source of this opinion I cannot help you. It is also not an official position of the SFP to eschew the eUSAforums, we still do work there (when work is actually being done there).

The Closer

Two more egregious errors exist in the article in question. I cannot express how worrisome the following quote is:

As Party President, I will select knowledgeable, intelligent changemakers for Congressional candidacy.

For actual years the SFP has determined its Congressional candidates in a democratic primary easily accessible both in the Party chat here and on our forums. These people are put on our Congressional slate per the number of votes by the Chairman with no input by the Chairman except for their own votes. Saying "I will select..." is a blatant demonstration of either complete ignorance of SFP's customs or total disregard for them. It is unacceptable and it cannot be allowed to stand.

Last is the refrain posted at the en😛 Join me. Join the American Revolution.

It is telling that joining "me" is put before the Party, even with the bastardized name. This looks less and less like an effort to reform the SFP. We have someone swept to the Chairmanship by a corrupted election who has reneged on campaign promises (or at least done the minimum to follow through on them), and has abandoned our party's principles in favor of rapid, unilateral change.

Let me say it clear. This is not "An American Revolution", and it is most certainly not "Cerb's Party."

THIS IS THE SFP.

This is a party forged many years ago (2009), one that has always served as a place free-thinkers can go to have fun in this game and talk philosophy. This is our own political Island of Misfit Toys, where rabble-rousers, elves that want to be dentists, and revolutionaries can congregate and exchange notes. Here we talk, here we deliberate, here we chart a course for change together, not with one hand on the wheel.

In closing I implore our Party President to return the name to its former state. It is a sacred thing to some of us, and changing it with little discussion and less regard for the history behind it offends us all, from our oldest veterans to the youngest bear cub. Return the info blurb, edit out the inane past-tensing of our core values. Speak with us, and together we can make the changes SFP needs.