[Kylero for CP] A Plan for eBe
Kylero
Ladies and gents,
It is clear that we have problems in our nation. Some would like to see it in black and white. What I mean by this is that there are apparently two groups: Establishment/Elites versus PTOers/Cheaters. I'll explain, as I see it, the common misconceptions of members often associated with each group.
Establishment/Elites:
These are the players that have been in eBelgium for quite a while. But that's not always the case. Some are new to eBelgium, but enter already known by trusted players, so they are associated with this group. Some are players who used to be very active in eBelgium, but have since moved to other nations.
These players are perceived to be very active on the forum and IRC. They are consistently elected to Congress, PP, and CP. They are often always involved in the Cabinet, just roles are sometimes changed. There's always an "up-and-coming" player from this group who just falls into the Presidency.
This group is viewed by its detractors as pompous and controlling. Players in this group often follow forum-established rules and expect others to do the same. However, the other group believes that these rules only serve to protect their dominance over eBelgium; that they make the rules and break them when it is convenient for them.
PTOers/Cheaters:
Members of this group are often put here by association. These players want to do things differently in eBelgium. They think that the established rules are outdated, and do not accept the procedures to change them because they think those procedures are not legitimate.
They are perceived by other players as dangerous to the established order of eBelgium. They are often suspected of PTO and cheating. They defend themselves by explaining that PTO is allowed by game mechanics, and the negative stigma associated with PTO is inappropriate. They believe that one man's PTO is another man's reform.
So who's right?
Well nobody really. One group thinks that the way to reform is through established procedures. The other thinks that the established procedures are not legitimate, and therefore want to reform eBelgium through other means. This creates tension and distrust. Names are thrown around and reputations are dragged through the mud.
Cool story, bro...now what?
Okay, so if you've read up to this point, you may start to see the conundrum; the disconnect between how we, as a society, can get from A to B. We have a Constitution, we have laws on the forum. I think at times we can ALL agree some of the laws are outdated and unclear. In fact, there are many things we can all agree on, but the trouble is getting there.
What I am proposing is a plan for eBelgium, a Comprehensive Plan for the future!
Larger View
An inclusive dialogue for progress. Representatives from each party can sit down together (kind of), and discuss a key aspect in our society. We can start anew. But I don't mean to say that we should throw away our laws and Constitution just yet. What I am saying though, is that an open discussion between parties can find common ground. We can open our minds to new ideas and new ways of doing things. We as a people control our destiny, and I know we can put aside our differences and have opposing viewpoints discussed in a nonconfrontational manner.
If a Party chooses not to participate, well then what can you do. But let's try. Let's try to move forward. If we don't, here's what you're going to have. One group holding onto power and determining the gameplay quality of a MMORPG for others, and another group CONSTANTLY trying to gain power with a chip on their shoulder.
I believe we need to throw our ideas together and see what we can come up with. If you do too, vote for me for CP!
Kylero
Comments
This is an interesting plan, although a bit impractical, especially in such a small community. The working groups will require a minimum of 20 people, with the PP summit requiring an additional 5, and in reality, many of these same people will be in the Congress. In addition, the way this structured seems likely to need more than the one-month time frame that is specified in the game. I do like the different way of approaching this, but I have my doubts about how it would work.
I don't foresee this being a one month gig. I don't see a problem with filling the groups. If PP's can't find someone for Culture for example, then their voice won't be heard. If a party is that small or doesn't care enough, then should their opinion matter? It becomes proportional that way.
I wouldn't get too bogged down on the format at this point. The intent is clear I think. Thanks Maryam!
"Well nobody really. One group thinks that the way to reform is through established procedures. The other thinks that the established procedures are not legitimate, and therefore want to reform eBelgium through other means. "
Sure no group is wrong, ofcourse you don't want to piss off one side or the other but want as many votes as possibly. Take a stand and stick with it, not taking a stand and appeasing both sides just make you look weak.
I am taking a stand. I'm saying that it is not as simple as saying one side versus the other. I am saying that I UNDERSTAND the disconnec and that it is NOT enough to leave it as it is. I think it's just about damn time we get the ideas into the open, without the suspicion. If you call one group PTOers just because they want to do things differently, aren't you proving their point? This game is designed to allow for political groups to forge their own destiny. I can certainly understand the frustration of exclusionary politics.
Good luck
Clicked for the article, stayed for the gif.
Good job, you have my attention now !
Good luck