Join the new world

The problem is that party presidents have grown more powerful with the changes to the Congress elections. An unknown candidate poses a big risk simply because ... it is not known if he intends to harm eAustria or not. If a PTO group manages to take control over a party, they can get their candidates into Congress, paving the way for more of them (via the granting of citizenships). As a small nation we have to be very careful about these kinds of situations. Better safe than sorry.

I agree with you but I don't. If there are 10-15 guys who joined the game and they decide to join the same party and vote for one of them to be party president, I don't see where is the problem. That thing is denied to them.
This control shows that only some people have "rights" in eAustria.

v2 sub6

I am now the captain and because such voting've retired.I'm disappointed in some people who seek only their own interests, and throwing other good players in the shadow.Personally, I think some people have a lot of congressional medal and should let some other place.

I agree Schwrzwolf

I agree, it's going too far!

"If there are 10-15 guys who joined the game and they decide to join the same party and vote for one of them to be party president, I don't see where is the problem. That thing is denied to them."
-> I described the problem above. If they are helping Austria they're welcome to do so. But if nobody knows of their intentions, it's better to be cautious.

"This control shows that only some people have "rights" in eAustria."
-> There is no special "control". As long as nothing illegal is done, everyone has only one vote. If one group of people organises itself, others can do so too.
btw - in the case of Duuuutan in the ARP, I find it highly questionable how someone so new and unknown can get so many votes all of a sudden. Either there is one organised group supporting him, or his saying "i have 10 multi acc. 😛 hahaha 😉" is no joke... And if it actually is a group, then why don't they tell us about their intentions?

You are of course right to a certain degree -> Everyone should be politically free.
I think this is more a matter of trust than "rights" however. We all know that eAustria has been the target of many PTO attempts, so people who reach for power after only a short time here are always viewed with suspicion. All you need to be a successful politcian in eAustria is a bit of patience and the willingness to communicate. While there is little fluctuation in the government, I believe the various cabinets have been reasonably open to new personnel. Sadly, here aren't many people asking to join the government. If anyone reading this wants to work for the good of eAustria, feel free to contact someone in the government about this! Alternatively, you can try the harder way and start something positive yourself from scratch, like wschwabe did with his food distribution program.

You raise some legitimate concerns: many times, small nations have closed themselves off to newcomers, establishing a really strict "elite/family" so to speak, where new players have no chance to advance (example: Singapore). Eventually new players lose interest, so they leave... and eventually that elite loses interest too and leaves, so nobody is left and the nation can be taken over by whoever.

Also many times, small nations have been taken over: treasuries stolen, relations with neighbors ruined, by forces with selfish or malicious intent. It's happened here before (including virtually every month by a different group for a stretch in early 2009).

So clearly there is trouble to be found in both extremes. A small nation can't survive if it is closed off, nor can it pretend there is no danger from anyone. The best case is one which allows for advancement by participation in the public arena: gaining trust of fellow citizens through presenting ideas, demonstrating character, carrying out actions. Generally I think governments have done a good job integrating new players (including contrary voices) into cabinets (though there always can be more).

It’s not a question of rights, obviously anyone can candidate for any office. People can invite friends to join, they can change parties... etc. People in Austria are skeptical (and I think rightly so) about people who join Austria and run in first election they can, especially when they begin recieving many votes without having written a single article (as happened in this case). It would be bad if fear of “PTO’s” led Austria to become closed off, but I don’t see what is bad about this particular case given the circumstances. As a country we absolutely should give people a chance to introduce themselves and join in - its just that the introducing should not be from such a vital role as PP.

Funny how Rangeley says very similar things, but does so much more eloquently than me : D

The key to success in eAustria, is communication and sense of community. Whoever does good and does the community before personal success is growing in size and celebrating further successes. Whoever believes achieve high goals quickly will not get very far and lose quickly.
It does not take too much to be recognized in eAustria, yet this must be done first.

Schwrzwolf : "There is no special "control". As long as nothing illegal is done, everyone has only one vote. If one group of people organises itself, others can do so too."
-> If somebody uses multi accounts I think he would or will be baned. And therefor he would gain nothing as somebody else will take his place. On the other hand if they are all clean then their options are denied because of the "backdoor" arranagements.

Schwrzwolf : "And if it actually is a group, then why don't they tell us about their intentions?"
->To be hinest I do not share the same thoughts with you here. First, why everybody has to "answer" or "shere things" with people who are not their target? Maybe he/they don't like you or X or Y or Z. Maybe they share those things in RL. Second, who is that "us"? Because I feel that means "us the same 10-15 people who are rotated in eAustrian cabinet".
No offense but to me, as an outsider of this political life, it looks like there is an elite that needs to know everything that moves, to control everything. I see that citizenship can't be avarded without an "accept" of the Minister, that laws can't be proposed without having a discution first, then if that doesn't happen all congress members are guided to vote against it (even if that may be a good law). To me it looks very much like a control and even worst, it looks like a successful PTO.

Schwrzwolf : "Sadly, here aren't many people asking to join the government. If anyone reading this wants to work for the good of eAustria, feel free to contact someone in the government about this!"
-> It shouldn't be like that. Government should ask in articles if people whant certain jobs or position. People who are running for Presidency should form their government and present it BEFORE elections, not after. So the others can see what they vote. You asked above "And if it actually is a group, then why don't they tell us about their intentions?"
Question : Can you show me at least one of those who run for PP who had an article released to inform about their intention ? I guess not. And don't answer me with : some of them are very well known and people know what their intentions are ... This ain't good. People come and go, new players are joining, old players are leaving, things are changing, information always are needed.

In the end just my conclusion : I don't like to see other, from other party that have nothing to do with my party, making my vote = 0. If the current PP can't retain his position then that means he isn't wanted anymore by those in their party. Because with all these action all I've seen is one party divided in 4 sectors.

Again, you raise some legitimate points, but others really miss the mark. You argue it is a “backdoor arrangement” for people to rally around a known candidate (Nettoboy), organizing in public, when an unknown candidate begins to receive many votes without ever having written an article or publicly stated his intentions. But you don't consider it a backdoor arrangement for someone to join a game with 10-15 friends, not publish anything in public, and gain an extremely prominent role that can effect the entire nation? Someone voting for Nettoboy cancels out your vote and "violates your rights," but someone just joining the game with 10-15 friends doesn't cancel your vote or "violate your rights?"

You attack the intentions of people who are concerned about a new citizen recieving many votes for an important office without ever having written an article, but do not question the intentions of someone who would join a game with 10-15 friends (this is all assuming they are legitimate accounts) and run for an office? This happens all over the eWorld, especially in small nations such as ours where 10-15 votes can make a huge difference - especially when noone is paying attention. With a foothold this size, a much larger group can then begin transferring more and more of their numbers into the small nation (PP's appoint congress candidates, congress members approve new citizens). In the grand scheme of things, it takes far fewer votes to completely overpower a small nation than a large nation, but even a large nation like the eUSA is dealing with a serious PTO attempt that began, at some point, as a smaller effort.

You are absolutely right that concern about PTO’s can go too far. I completely agree with you there, and it is good to challenge actions and question rationale. But this questioning attitude should not be abandoned when it comes to people who join the game with 10-15 friends and run for a political office shortly after, without ever stating their intentions at all even when directly asked (instead only making “jokes” about multis and being unclear whether they consider themselves a serious candidate.)

But I agree with you that all PP candidates should ideally post articles - as you note, even if they have publicly stated things in the past, new players may not have seen this. Ideally, cabinets would be posted in advance (sometimes they are, sometimes not). You have expressed over your long time here about the need for governments to be more communicative. These things would all strengthen the public world, inviting people to post articles in turn whether they agree or disagree, post comments, etc. It also strengthens the public world when the most public offices are held by people who are communicative and responsive - people who gained their position of prominence not because they joined with a large group of friends, but because they have earned the trust and support of other members of the community who also participate in the public world.

On the other hand, if the public offices are held by people not because they participate publicly, but simply because of behind the scenes connections with large groups, this can weaken the public world by disconnecting it from the reigns of power. This isn’t to say groups are bad per se, but that public offices should not be earned strictly by them.

I know this doesn't address everything you said (some of which I also agreed with), but I feel like this is getting like a long response and don't want to leave an immense wall of text : P We can pick up other issues in further replies if you are interested.