Banning of Parties?

[Nubclear]

I know, it sounds very radical, but....In CFC, its working.

Here (well, more appropriately here ) party politics has become too much party of the game. It's become very boring now.

I know that theres no way of completly banning parties. But we can limit their abilities and therefore combat their effect.

[Lemmy]

hmm, what sort of parties would be banned then?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Lemmy
hmm, what sort of parties would be banned then?

Political parties and organizations. CDC, P4, CCCP....They could not officially exist thereby making it harder for them to run thereby making it hard for politics to become a bigger concern then the actual game itself.

[MrWhereItsAt]

It is certainly true that politics are rampant in the Civ3 game, but it has become less about the parties as of late, and more about the egos. Then again, there are only two huge parties in the Civ3 game, so things are straightorward, if stratified. I have no idea how many parties are in existence here, but I have seen at least 5 or 6 acronyms/abbreviations. Things could get really out of control.

The question I ask of you all is this: do you believe, with this many parties, it is possible for those of us here to act responsibly enough to let politics lie whenever it is counterproductive? You are not just answering for yourself, but for everyone here.

[Archaic]

We're playing the PK's. What's more in-character than political infighting and bureaucracy in the UN?

Consider also that it seems we'll be going towards a 3-4 party system soon as the like minded parties join forces into larger conglomerates. Many would likely diverge by the late game, but let's get real, this game isn't likely to last long enough for us to Trancend unless we make a special effort to not get into wars.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
It is certainly true that politics are rampant in the Civ3 game, but it has become less about the parties as of late, and more about the egos. Then again, there are only two huge parties in the Civ3 game, so things are straightorward, if stratified. I have no idea how many parties are in existence here, but I have seen at least 5 or 6 acronyms/abbreviations. Things could get really out of control.

there were many parties in the beginning of the civ3 demo game as well.

The question I ask of you all is this: do you believe, with this many parties, it is possible for those of us here to act responsibly enough to let politics lie whenever it is counterproductive? You are not just answering for yourself, but for everyone here.

I do not believe this is possible due to human nature. Party politics always seems to get in the way of things, and....I dunno, I just dont think its possible.

Tassadar

[Wojit]

Personally I think parties would be fine, provided it doesn't become a two party system

But I actually think that's probably just what will eventuate, and voted yes anyway. Despite being in a party

*cough*

[Lemmy]

ok, then i nominate Tassadar as official watchdog to keep an eye on the parties and tell them whenever things get too political. I think the biggest risk of things getting political is with two very equal parties that do not wish to cooporate for some reason, so that one party does the opposite of the other, even when it isn't their party goal.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Wojit
Personally I think parties would be fine, provided it doesn't become a two party system

But I actually think that's probably just what will eventuate, and voted yes anyway. Despite being in a party

*cough*

Ive observed...parties in the beginning are plentiful and 'colourful', however a lot of them just have a common idealogy...In civ3, its builder vs. warmonger. Here, it could be the same thing. Or Free Market vs. Green.

But it usually eventually comes to two parties. two ideas. i think its almost inevitable unless we completly ban parties.

[MrWhereItsAt]

There were a few parties in the Civ2 game at the start. They kinda lost importance, and politics seemed to stay in their own party threads. How much of that you can attribute to the loss of members and how much to the responsible nature of the posters ( ) I don't know, but is the situation similar here?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
There were a few parties in the Civ2 game at the start. They kinda lost importance, and politics seemed to stay in their own party threads. How much of that you can attribute to the loss of members and how much to the responsible nature of the posters ( ) I don't know, but is the situation similar here?

I think its too early to tell, but....Let's eliminate the problem before it even begins. Let's ban political parties and organizations from forming or operating in any official capacity.

[MrWhereItsAt]

It's a fair call, Tass

Something similar that seems to have worked in the Civ3 game was the establishment of the War Academy and Thinker's Guild. The Thinker's Guild was supposedly where you went to discuss the philosophy of actions in the game - you weren't members of a party, merely a small group that chatted there, normally about hopw to expand your alcohol stash. The War Academy threads were on various strategic decisions/plans made and helped significantly in many cases. These groups had no loyalties but to thoughtful exchange, and they did not degenerate.

If anyone is annoyed that parties may be banned here, start one of these - a thread for discussing certain aspects of the game, rather than a thread for so-called like-minded individuals.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
It's a fair call, Tass

Something similar that seems to have worked in the Civ3 game was the establishment of the War Academy and Thinker's Guild. The Thinker's Guild was supposedly where you went to discuss the philosophy of actions in the game - you weren't members of a party, merely a small group that chatted there, normally about hopw to expand your alcohol stash. The War Academy threads were on various strategic decisions/plans made and helped significantly in many cases. These groups had no loyalties but to thoughtful exchange, and they did not degenerate.

If anyone is annoyed that parties may be banned here, start one of these - a thread for discussing certain aspects of the game, rather than a thread for so-called like-minded individuals.

WA and TG were good because they werent political parties, they didnt act like political parties, and they didnt serve the function of political parties. AND they were much more efficent than political parties.

DIA and UFC arent good because they did act like political parties. continuously bickering at each other over the littlest thing, and the only reason they do it is because the other party is....well, the other party.

that soon began growing and....thats all it seems to be now

[Emvepe]

I have an idea! Lets ban tassadar! He is getting too.. controlling and.. BOSSY. Did you ever stop for a second and think that some people might actually LIKE politics? Some people enjoy politics and taking away there parties would just ruin there fun..

(not serious about the ban tassadar thing btw :P)

[Nubclear]

He is getting too.. controlling and.. BOSSY

Does this mean I have what it takes to run for Commisoner?

Did you ever stop for a second and think that some people might actually LIKE politics? Some people enjoy politics and taking away there parties would just ruin there fun..

*SIGH* If you want it, then go join the civ3 demo game...you dont even need the game, since its all politics.

But you dont nesisarily (SP again please!) need parties in order to have politics. all you need is people disagreeing with each other