Chiron Democratic Coalition

[Darkness' Edge]

As far as I'm concerned, you can nominate. But as he's the president, Crisler has the final say.

[GeneralTacticus]

OK. I'll PM him and find out.

[FlameFlash]

Go ahead and do try to nominate yourself... even if nominations are officially closed you could always become a write-in canidate.

[Kassiopeia]

*gives the thread a good kick in the hindquarters*

Vote ppl, vote!

[AdamTG02]

EDP developments

The Exploration and Discovery Party is now voting on a proposal to merge with the P4, and form a new party which will not be a part of the CDC. P4 is unanimously for it, but no EDP member has so far endorsed it, although several including myself have said they are considering it.

Now is the time to make your views known, either on this thread or on the EDP thread. The P4 has had a chance to make their case -- the CDC deserves at the very least an equal chance. So, feel free to speak up.

[Darkness' Edge]

It would be a sad loss.

I generally try to stay out of party politics, but the P4 has proven to be rather...egotistic, and obsessed with power.. I'd vote for an ACE candidate over most of the P4 people any day, as several of them don't play very well with others.

[AdamTG02]

the P4 has proven to be incredibly vengeful, egotistic, and obsessed with power

Could you support that statement?

[Darkness' Edge]

I just toned down my original statement.

The UN constitution thread is the best example. We're..what, three or four days into the game, and they're already calling for the impeachment of the Commissioner and two directors, over utter nitpicking. And I suppose it's just coincidence that all three officials attacked just happened to be the three who defeated P4 candidates in the elections.

The P4's own thread is another good example. Most of us don't take our politics too seriously. But after the elections, who was whining that that ACE "didn't live up to their end of the bargain" and deliver victory to P4 candidates?

If nothing else, consider this.
The P4 expects their members to mirror the party line, and to vote with them on every issue. The CDC is much more democratic, and allows conscience votes.

[Archaic]

[ threadjack ]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge the P4 has proven to be incredibly vengeful, egotistic, and obsessed with power

If you're going to attack me, attack me directly, instead of attacking my party. I am the most extreme member of it, and my views to not always stick to the party line.
And even if we took your comment as being aimed at me, it's still a strawman.

they're already calling for the impeachment of the Commissioner and two directors, over utter nitpicking.

So Pandemoniak ignoring what the people voted for and instead making an arbitary decision was nitpicking?

And I suppose it's just coincidence that all three officials attacked just happened to be the three who defeated P4 candidates in the elections.

Perhaps we should be asking if it's a coincidence that the members of a supposedly democratic alliance have made decisions undemocratically.

The P4's own thread is another good example. Most of us don't take our politics too seriously. But after the elections, who was whining that that ACE "didn't live up to their end of the bargain" and deliver victory to P4 candidates?

How is it taking politics "too seriously" to expect people to keep a promise? We kept our part of the bargain, they didn't keep theirs.

If nothing else, consider this.
The P4 expects their members to mirror the party line, and to vote with them on every issue. The CDC is much more democratic, and allows conscience votes.

Perhaps you should read the P4 thread again. Few members voted for all the "supported" canditates. I know I bloody well didn't. Neither did DBTS. Or Maniac. Nor TKG.

[/ threadjack ]

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
[ threadjack ]



If you're going to attack me, attack me directly, instead of attacking my party. I am the most extreme member of it, and my views to not always stick to the party line.
And even if we took your comment as being aimed at me, it's still a strawman.

Maybe someone with a ton of time on their hands should go through all of Archaics posts and find all the little "strawmans" and "appeal to authority" etc in his posts. He seems to like doing it a lot....Hey, wait a minute.....I wont say

(I know, your going to saw it was a personal attack. However, I'm not saying your WRONG.....therefore i'm not in violation of that 'rule'....)

So Pandemoniak ignoring what the people voted for and instead making an arbitary decision was nitpicking?

I agree with you there.

Perhaps we should be asking if it's a coincidence that the members of a supposedly democratic alliance have made decisions undemocratically.

Ok.

How is it taking politics "too seriously" to expect people to keep a promise? We kept our part of the bargain, they didn't keep theirs.

I dont recall all of them taking an oath or anything....

Perhaps you should read the P4 thread again. Few members voted for all the "supported" canditates. I know I bloody well didn't. Neither did DBTS. Or Maniac. Nor TKG.

[/ threadjack ]

How do you know these things? I mean, looking through the P4 thread I'm able to eliminate 2 from your list...

I just voted in all the OFFICIAL polls for the people we support. [I was the first one because it said only one vote so thats kinda sweet.]

Bloody.

Naturally I voted for the preferred candidate list as well. Am I lame now?

Maniac.

[DeathByTheSword]

[treadjack]

well i dont no about Tbb and maniac but......a hell with it I am not going to be part of discussion

[lucky22]

What precipitated this move? Has the P4 been soliciting the idea, or are the EDP fed up with the CDC for some reason? Do reasons include: No sense of direction, no sense of organization, poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

I believe any of these conflicts or discomforts can be addressed without dissolving the CDC.

EDP members: please complain freely for the sake of this discussion.

[Maniac]

Read Archaic's post. It reflects pretty well what I think. It is also noteworthy that CDC can't come up with any policy reason why EDP should stay with them. Their only argument is P4 being less democratic than EDP. I think yesterday has proved it's actually the reverse.

Can you really blame me for voting on the exact list of "P4 preferred candidates"? What do you expect? I ****ing am the one who came to that voting agreement with Crisler.

The last accusation against P4 is that we expect all members to mirror party policy. I would like to say two things on that.

One. The purpose of parties is that it unites people with similar but not identical worldviews. They then strive to realize the policies all members are unanimously in favour for. However they also strive to realize policies a large majority of members is in favour for. It is then preferred that the whole party votes in favour of that issue, also the minority which is against that particular issue. It is a quid-pro-quo relationship. To give a concrete example: the EDP part of "D4" votes in favour of adopting a free market economy, though some of them are sceptical about it. On another time the P4 part votes to continue expanding until eternity, although several members would prefer to stop at 20 bases. Is that so undemocratic? Without the above principle parties have no use at all.

Two. Personally I don't feel I'm forcing all members to vote the same on all issues. A closer look at my posts would indicate I deliberately maintain a neutral attitude about many policy items. For example, planetbuster building: I abstained. For all I care P4 members can think what they want about those weapons. The same in the PS discussion. It's the same to me whether we would build a PS base or an all-specialist base. Let my fellow party members decide which of the two options will be taken.

Some final notes to DE about your post in the constitution thread. I won't continue it there because it would be off-topic.

Though other directors, for example MrWhereItsAt, have had enough time to poll citizens about our build queue before the game started, you can't expect the same from Pandemoniak. He can hardly start a poll before we know our start location! So you can't blame Pandemoniak. You should have waited. I don't see the need to rush this game. Do you? How many turns do you expect to play this month anyway?

I found one relevant thread, and in that, the general consensus was for the city location I founded it in.

What thread would that be? In all threads I've looked, there was a majority for starting at our landing spot.

I'd vote for an ACE candidate over most of the P4 people any day, as several of them don't play very well with others.

Hello?? Are you saying this simply because I tell people when they aren't acting right? I think it is clear I would post many more polls when director than any of you guys. You don't play well with and don't listen to others.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by lucky22
What precipitated this move? Has the P4 been soliciting the idea, or are the EDP fed up with the CDC for some reason? Do reasons include: No sense of direction, no sense of organization, poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

I believe any of these conflicts or discomforts can be addressed without dissolving the CDC.

EDP members: please complain freely for the sake of this discussion.

More or less the idea came about in my mind from the similarities of worldviews that TKG and I share. From there it progressed into the thought of a merger, rather than a coalition because the P4 was against becoming a coalition from the start of the game for reasons I'll simply respect and not reiterate.

So to finalize your first to questions... P4 did slightly solicite the idea, but only after TKG and my initial noting of the fact that our idealolgies were similar, yet each knowing the other wouldn't cross to another party when the one we started in was still around and we were still in agreement with it as well.

No sense of direction might be part of it... but then the EDP has been called directionless before...

There's no sense of organization because there isn't any, period... at least that I've seen.

The last few

poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

don't really apply because I've never had a problem with CCCP's policies either, if you remember... just wasn't in total agreement with them.

Simply because the EDP possibly leaves the CDC doesn't mean that it needs to be dissolved... you've still got other parties that are a part of it... but it's not even official that the EDP is leaving yet, and posing that as a reason for the EDP not to leave isn't posing much of an argument, as Maniac said...

[AdamTG02]

A few points:

As I said in the EDP thread, the one issue that might motivate me to withdraw from the CDC is the early base placement and playing to 2106 without many polls. I don't see this as a constitutional issue, because we did vote for a representative, not a participative, democracy. (I was outvoted. ) Rather, I see it as a style of leadeship issue. The kind of gameplay I would like to encourage is that which relies on polls and the opinion of the people to make decisions, and doesn't necessarily play turns very quickly. Now, I have little to no prior experience with democracy games (I joined the Civ 3 game a few days before signing up for this one), so this may be unrealistic. But it is my hope for future government.

This by itself would not be any reason for the EDP to quit the CDC. Commissioner Darkness' Edge is only one out of many CDC members. But it does make the argument that we should stay in solidarity with the CDC, and rebuff P4 because of it, less persuasive. To my knowledge no EDP member has come to a final decision yet; both sides are being weighed.

The purpose of parties is that it unites people with similar but not identical worldviews. They then strive to realize the policies all members are unanimously in favour for. However they also strive to realize policies a large majority of members is in favour for. It is then preferred that the whole party votes in favour of that issue, also the minority which is against that particular issue. It is a quid-pro-quo relationship. To give a concrete example: the EDP part of "D4" votes in favour of adopting a free market economy, though some of them are sceptical about it. On another time the P4 part votes to continue expanding until eternity, although several members would prefer to stop at 20 bases.

This is a little worrying to me, simply because the EDP, and also the CDC, have in my experience operated on different principles. I've never told EDP members, "2/3 of us have voted to support this policy; therefore, I expect the remaining third to support it as well." The issue of what to support is an individual decision, a conscience-driven rather than loyalty-based choice. Politics often if not always involves moral decisions; the right to decide what moral principles one wants to buy into is and must remain an individual one.

Is that so undemocratic? Without the above principle parties have no use at all.

Without that principle, parties can still:

-- discuss issues and come to a reasoned consensus
-- draw together people of similar minds on the issues
-- rally support for the issues on which they do agree
-- foster debate on the subjects on which they don't agree
-- endorse candidates, whether or not all members agree with the candidate on every issue.

I will say this: I believe that EDP and CDC have a fundamentally different attitude toward party loyalty than is evidenced by the above statement. That doesn't mean we can't work together, but it does provide a hurdle that we would have to get around.

I don't plan to leave the party if the EDP joins P4. But I also don't plan to be loyal to the party on issues where I disagree, whether that party is EDP or 3D / D4. That's not to say I wouldn't compromise -- but I would retain the discretion to compromise or not.

I'm hoping that we would be able to work together on those terms.