A Response to new Unity Proposals
•
by Dalan Di Celes
For six months, until early June I was a two clicker, never straying from the main website. I took my time in deciding to join the eUSA forums. I didn't like the idea of needing to go offsite to play in the game unless i chose to. So unity deprived me of the vote that i would normally have for CP. I understood the reasons however, and supported Unity. Eventually I made my way to the forums when I chose to.
When people got behind changing the unity process, I thought maybe, perhaps, hopefully, finally they would get the election process at least partially out of the hands of the forums and somehow back into the main site.
Instead it appears to reduce the power of one group of people on the boards, and give it to another group, leaving out the hundreds of folks who never make it over to the forum. This proposal states it is the most democratic proposal out there, but is it? Who are the representatives for the two clickers on the eUSA forums now?
The ramifications of this proposal are that there will be a major push to get people registered on the forums. In some ways that can be good. But for me, my political party was never too pushy to get people on the forums. I appreciated that. I also knew that at least my political party represented me within Unity. Now in order to stay relevant they will have to push their members to register for the party to have a voice.
And folks can say that is good, it gives too much power to parties and not enough to the individual. A fair argument in normal circumstances but parties don't just represent the folks on the forums, they represent the hordes of two clickers on the main website who do not get to vote.
From the perspective of a long time "two clicker" the proposal represents the worst of Unity... The choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
After so many months of complaining about Unity, was this really the best proposal to be offered?
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voted
Unfortunately, short of casting your vote on an article, there is no way to make a Primary ingame.
The system I presented gives any individual the power to directly affect the outcome of an election, should they chose to participate.
Democracy isn't for those who sit on their hands. Look at the real world, how parties handle their Primaries for PotUS. There, the people who go out to vote during the Primaries decide which candidate will ultimately get the weight of their party's vote.
Will this result in a push to get players onto the forums? Probably. But it can also result in parties reforming HOW they handle their Primaries.
Personally, I believe that it's not a case of "two clickers" "who do not get to vote." It's a case of people who have chosen to not be involved in the process.
Note; This is not said with malice, but this is a conversation I've had a couple of times regarding my proposal.
Well, you could also PM your vote to your Party President on top of voting in an article's comment section. Forgot to add that.
If there is a method for the opportunity for in game players to vote, it would basically destroy the meat of my argument.
OR we could just let me be CP?
Umm. . .no.
RGR, thanks for your input, but this doesn't have anything to do with you.
I am not internet savvy. My nephew has had to instruct me how to do things on the internet, on IRC, in Google, etc.
Participating on the forums is a chore. I see that, but. . . Is it such a big chore that it prevents you from voting in the primary? I don't see that. Unless you make some effort and participate in the country's life, even in this minor way, do you really get much out of this game?
Insert plug here for Mike Ontry's voting system used by the WTP.
Another point, from a different perspective: You young whippersnappers are supposed to know how this infuriating typewriter-thingy works. If you don't, you better learn right quick 'cause sitting in front of a screen is going to be more and more important in your life if only so you can pay taxes.
I enjoyed playing on the site for six months without joining the forums. This game is great in the sense that it lets those with busy schedules such as myself participate as much as I am able to... And still grow within the game.
Given the percentage of folks who voted for unity on the forums compared to unity on the site, I was hardly alone. I barely had (sometimes barely have) time to do my 25 kills, work, train, buy weapons/food. So registering on another forum, navigating it, getting approved to join a party board, check the board often enough to get approved, find the relevant thread and then remembering to post on it once a month... Just to do something that would easily take two clicks on the main site... Yes that is a burden to me. Not a major one, but big enough.
That said, I am a hardcore RPGer at heart and I love all the meta gaming offers, which is why I eventually joined. But making voting accessible to folks that only visit this site just makes Unity better, and I believe drives another nail into the coffin of the AFA.
I can agree with most of what you said. The whole prospect of having to go to another site to do something related to this site has never agreed with me very well... Of course I hate just about everything related to Meta-Gaming (I.E. Smogon rules for pokemon), why can't we just play the game like it was intended without adding more complexity and rules that make no sense in relation to the main game.
Because if we had 2 major candidates in front, the PTO party has a much higher chance at electing their President, and then we would all be in the poo.
The game is deficient in many ways. It demands meta. If not forums then at the very least IRC.
Parts of it are WAY overcomplicated and have been since the beginning. Our national government was set up by some hardcore role players so the level of srs bsns is pretty absurd. But even at it's most basic and common-sense level, there is still a need for some sort of investment on your part. Just playing the game in-game isn't terribly fun. Clicking 'fight' doesn't hold a candle to organizing military missions through forums and IRC.
Invest in going off-site and it opens up a whole world of opportunity.
fingerguns writes: "Clicking 'fight' doesn't hold a candle to organizing military missions through forums and IRC."
_______________
don't be too sure. Arguing and yelling at each other and trading insults and general bad behaviour are not particularly attractive benefits. Many players are quite happy to stop by for the entertainment that can be had in game. Dr. Luis, and John Killah, describe a meta game that can't hold a candle to remaining in game. Have you given thought to what people who stay "in game" actually do and why it might be the more palatable experience for them? I suspect you have and that you have some pretty good notions. Involving the mass of players in the selection of a presidential candidate may require a paradigm shift away from "party" to "team". Give it some thought.
Dr Luis and John Killah are both 'meta players.' They can always be found on IRC and frequent a number of forums. One of their off-site hangouts is no longer fun for them but I haven't seen either player claim to be going full 2-click and swearing off forums and IRC.
It doesn't really matter though. This is a game that is greatly influenced by off-site interactions and conversations. That's not debatable. Whether you think it's worth your while or not is up to you. Some tried it and didn't care for it. Others haven't tried it and don't want to. Some doesn't even realize it's a thing and believe that somehow our terribly complicated social structures have been built through private in-game messages and shout feeds and major decision-making and organization happens in articles and their comments.
fingerguns: no doubt and not debatable that off site events greatly influence the game. The article raises an issue about the place of those who are not highly active in the meta game. I can understand why many shun or avoid it. I'm not convinced their votes should be made to count for nothing. The meta game is more exciting and fun is no warrant for "so we won't count your vote". Agreed that, for many, "going off-site opens up a whole world of opportunity". Disagree that it should be the only way to gain the opportunity to help choose the President. Honest people can, of course, disagree. Kind regards to my very favourite eNPR host.
U N I T Y
the tool of the corrupt to enslave a nation!
Thanks for calling me Corrupt. I've been involved in the system far less time than anyone else involved in the Process.
Wrong conclusion 😉
Where did you read that? Be smart, pls.
I wrote a Unity proposal. You say Unity is a tool of corruption to enslave a nation. Therefore, as I'm involved in the "Corrupt" Unity process, I must be corrupt.
Not at all. Why? Because you seem to be doing it with best intentions, not knowing the evil repercussions involved.
You are forgiven 🙂
Prior to the AFA having Congressmen and Ajay/AFA Candidates actually getting a decent share of the CP votes.
I'm well aware of the repercussions, I can see how the election would split if it was done today the same way it was done Pre-Unity.
When was that pre-unity thing happening? A year ago?