Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
As all members of WTP will know, voting was taken off the forums and put back into the hands of anyone who wishes to voice their opinion. We are proud to say that 48 of WTP's 353 members chose to have a say in our eNation's eFuture.
Though that is just over 10%, we are proud that almost all WTP members were given the right* to participate in these elections.
Despite the achievement of getting all voting off the forums, a blight overshadows this election. That blight is a PM, sent with most Leadership consent (My own consent was given as well), to the party..
I am the Spokesman of the We The People Party, of which you are a member.
If you meet requirements you will be allowed to vote here:
I encourage all of you to vote for either Jason Statham Jr or John Killah; though we are not attempting to stifle individual opinion, Candor is an AFA/PTO sympathizer.
Jason\'s latest article can be found here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-statham4potus-foreign-affairs-amp-ebabies-2203654/1/20
John\'s latest article can be found here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-jk4presidente-external-matters-and-the-foreign-policy-military-team-2203039/1/20
Thank you for your time.
The reason why Leadership sent this PM was mainly that we felt that Candor's stance on the AFA was largely unknown to the party. Candor had, at this point, no serious articles. No one campaigned against him, people thought he wouldn't get votes..etc
Hence, he was mostly a fun, lulzy 10/10 candidate.
In short- We thought the people were missing something.
Now, I am firm in the fact that the AFA is a PTO organization. That is not an opinion in my books- It's just a fact of this game.
But it offended many people when we threw Candor in line with the word PTO. To be blunt, if Leadership really wanted to voice an opinion on Candor we shouldn't have done it halfway through voting VIA PM.
And this is where we are left off. A hurried, good intentioned attempt to inform our voters came out to look like Leadership trying to control the outcome of an election.
The main issue that has been discussed amoungst the partiers is how to balance Leadership's opinion, with our own. As expected, Leadership must have say in most votes and elections. After all, we are the ones who run the party and generally know what's going on.
It's just the way we voice our opinion that has to be questioned.
Picking up wherever this this thread left off, here are my views on the role of Leadership during elections...
1. For CP elections, Leadership will invite all CP candidates to either a Q&A session, or an IRC Debate. Those who cannot make the IRC Debate will be given a Q&A, those who cannot make the Q&A are extremely lazy.
Q&A questions can be proposed by anyone, mustn't be too personal.
("Hey Candor/Jason/John, what's your eye color ?" is....well..actually, we might let that on. But if they don't respond, you know why <_<)
The IRC Debate will be moderated by someone appointed by the PP/VP, and questions will be asked in a debate format. All logs will be published and shouted.
At the end, Leadership will open the primaries and include 1 PRO and 1 CON of each person, as well as a link to their most recent article.
We will also be encouraging candidates to take eachother seriously. Even if it's just 2 extra paragraphs at the end of an article. I mean, no matter how lulzy someone appears they are still running against you.
Aside- Donations to Presidential candidates who take their opponents seriously will be considered. For every paragraph, .01cc will be given. Those CC add up ^_~
2. For Congress elections, we should give a recommended list of people with pros-and-cons to most candidates. Has to be PP approved.
BUT, we will stick to Hawkie's system of voting. It would look something like this...
Pro- Has nice hair
Con- Has nicer hair than me
Pro- Is a pony
Con- Isn't apple jack :>
At a certain point we'd stop the cons and pros, ofc.
3. For PP elections, I see no need to change anything. Obviously Leadership will not be voicing views or endorsing anyone there.
But if certain people want to campaign for candidates and they happen to be in Leadership, they may do so under the guise of a normal citizen. They can mention the work they've individually done for the party, ofc.
Just some ideas. Could've done this without article, but this helps nonforumers see something is going on
At the end of the day, WTP is much more than a hunk of 40 gold occupied by 356 people. We are not just a 5th party, a shout feed or a place where ATOers graciously visit every few days.
We are the ill defined future,
A shadow of what lies yet to come,
A social experiment.
Signing off for now,
Aside- One-Two Warfare articles will be up when I get the new map. Why?
Just because I'm spamming my subs with WTP stuff :3
*Right- PTO threats and citizens under level 24 could not vote. Also, around 3-4 people slipped through the cracks. I'm working on ways to prevent that, sorry guys.
Ce este asta?Acesta este un articol scris de un cetățean eRepublik, un joc de strategie bazat pe țările din viața reală. Creează-ți propriul cetățean și condu țara ta pe drumul ei spre glorie. Îți poți câștiga faima în războaie, luptând ca un erou, în presă, scriind articole, sau construind un imperiu financiar.