[TRG] On Legitmacy
J.A. Lake
(Another track from the JFK soundtrack? I guess!)
I wanted to respond to Brother Gnilraps' article as well, though Josh Whitehead did a fine job himself. This is a conversation SFP has had at least once in recent memory, though I'm sure long-timers have seen it before more often.
Recently the SFP saw a split between radicals and conformists when Jude Conners ran for Dictator in November. A lot of the radicals were mad- not just because we were radical, but because this was a surrender on the most important issue of the day: dictatorship.
Since then a lot of Jude-ites have bailed on the SFP, and radicals have risen to power in a sense. There have been growing pains, but the SFP is stronger for them I think. We need to work out many of the issues facing ourselves as a Party, and Gnilraps correctly cites one of the largest.
So, legitimacy.
I would break it down to two categories, Internal Legitimacy and External Legitimacy. For the purposes of clarity I will define both:
1) Internal Legitimacy
This is the Party's view of itself as cohesive, consistent, and true to itself and its values. In SFP as in most parties (I would assume) we have high internal legitimacy. SFPers are fiercely loyal to the party and our brotherhood is unmatched.
2) External Legitimacy
This is the view of the party from outside. Following the events of 6 December it seems apparent that SFP's external legitimacy took a serious hit. This has implications that have driven off several of our members, namely the exclusion from the eUS Forums metagame and offices therein by the cabal in charge there.
Now, the way I see it the proposals made by Gnilraps are geared toward the restoration of the SFP's external legitimacy. To boil it down to bullet points:
* Adapt the SFP to Meta-Congress rules.
* Introduce a ban on running "blacklisted" members for Congress.
* Implement a Congressional Training Program.
Points 1 and 2 are clearly in service to that goal. Now, the goodness or badness notwithstanding we have to confront what this would do to our internal legitimacy. For one, our collaborationist wing has almost entirely fled the SFP. All that can be done by implementing these policies is drive out who remains: the radicals and the nonconformists. I don't believe this would help to improve our membership as a result.
Secondly, these proposals would lead to a sacrifice of internal legitimacy to try and increase external legitimacy. What good is getting back on the eUS Forums' good side if it means dragging the SFP's reputation through the mud in the hearts and minds of its own members?
What could be done instead? A middle ground must be found between collaboration and radicalism, and a hard-shift toward collaboration is not, I believe, the way to accomplish that. I agree that we should train people how to deal with Congress better. Maybe do a few grammar/spelling tutorials, issue ground rules on post content, work to build a body of research and legal precedent we can employ in debates on the forums.
We can increase our prominence, and through that I believe we can increase our external legitimacy. It will require work, and some of it may be combing through the noxious trash posted on the eUS Forums.
I agree that something has to change, but I disagree that bending to the eUS Forums' will is the way to do it. Change begins within, not without. SFP should get to work improving ourselves and our image, not conforming to what others say our image should be.
Comments
[TRG]On Legitimacy
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-trg-on-legitmacy-2591233/1/20
Vote | Shout | Converse | Endorse
Another article to follow yours coming out soon!
Wow, well said Lake!!!
this sounds like someone arranging his spice rack. if we introduce the paprika we have no place for the black pepper so perhaps lets just get rid of the mint because nobody likes mint anyway or wait........
Personally I think we need more cumin.
are their system of determining who gets banned fair/how representative are the people who makes these decisions. this sounds like the west forum where everybody who was not even slightly controversial was banned because a certain usa group made it almost impossible to post in a stupid game forum. they even banned this one guy who would deliberately twist his words to infuriate them called the black penny.
Bans are useful. Some are employed correctly. The issue at question in our case is we see bans handed out based on a loose set of rules. Blacklists for SFP members were handed down, then the definition of blacklisting was formally established.
Then we're told a "sincere apology" is required for un-blacklisting, as though we're in grade school and struck another student.
The system is not itself well-defined. Blacklisting isn't in the Constitution, it's just been invented by Congress and later added to the Constitution. The people who make the decision are the same people that run everything else.
No matter how much structure they create, we are always going to be us.
The solution is simple: amnesty.
If this is done, then I will personally lift the redlist against oligarglers and narcissistic bureaucrats.
I would support this.
Full Amnesty for the December Revolutionaries
since when hasn't the idea of unified top five been tantamount? Ajay was invited in to the eUS, so were the Owls, who at least were able to be bought off...
"Change begins within, not without"
Absolutely. o7
Miss you o/
Likewise. Although you'll still see me around BC at least, comrade. I'm sorry... it's just... well, they gave me an elk and an axe, it was hard to pass up. I'm not really sure if the axe and elk are meant to be used together in some fashion, but some of Norway's customs are new to me.
Hopefully we'll be able to arrange an international event, maybe another movie night in the SFP room when things slow down for me IRL. 😃
In more relevant news, it looks like it'll be an intense month for SFP though, and as much as I respect Gnil as a player, I'm rooting for TC on the sidelines. SFP will naturally evolve, but I don't see it's evolution as just getting in line and conforming to the 'metagame status quo'. It's a polarizing issue though, but on some level I honestly think eUSA will always need a party like SFP that isn't afraid to go against the grain. o7
Well said! Boom!
Very well done. Three thoughts that might already be part of the internal conversation:
When the other guy owns the ball, and bullies on the field to ensure he wins, stop playing his game. Set up your own forum, and run it so well that others want to emulate your model.
Communication is essential. Know what you want to convey, who your audience is, and what are the best words/images to get the message across. A bit of forethought saves a lot of after-the-fact angst. Avoid falling in love with your own eloquence, retaliation and cramming in points that divert the audience from your central concept.
You can not promote your values and ideas unless you know what they are. The most enduring will be collaboratively developed, consistent over time, and codified in simple clear language that ensures every member knows exactly what the party stands for.
I wish you every success.
"Comrades, the Revolution is not waiting in the woods to be discovered. We need to build it. We need to start right now. Yes, NOW." - Thomas Keesman, Worker's Party of the eNetherlands
both Keesman and the WPeN are long, long gone.
[removed]