Banning of Parties?

[Wojit]

I'm laughing too, but that's because I'm listening to a funny song

[Mr. President]

One of these threads already? We ain't seen nothin' yet!

[Crisler]

I see no difference in a game like this between political parties and partys described as good, like Builder vs Warmonger. In the end they are both the same thing. A group of people that share an ideology in how to best play the game and thus band together to get their ideas promoted.

The political party system we have running right now has led to a ton of fun RP and in the end is about how we think the game should be played.

If we ban political parties we should band any form of organized alliances. But then we all know that is impossible. Folks I honestly feel this is even silly to try.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[UnOrthOdOx]

Tass,

I can definately see where you are comming from. However, I do not think that the parties are the root of the current problems in the C3DG. In fact, up until the recent post from the DIA, it had been quite silent for quite some time.

Here there are many more things to discuss that a simple builder vs warmonger as well. I do not think that this will be as easy to boil down into a two party system. The game itself has more options available, and a more complex political system that will allow for more parties.

That said. The highlight of the C3DG so far has been the non-political groups. They removed the us vs them mentality that was beginning to accumulate, and focused everyone on the issues at hand.

[Juliennew]

Look at the SP game, it is a battle of ideology and 7 persons made their faction to materialize their utopia. The political parties share different views of society and, like the faction in the SP game, founded political parties to materialize their point of view in the game. And like said some people here, the + of a demo game is debates and politic and I think political parties are part of this fun. The main problem Tass, it is the choice between participative democracy or a representative one. But if we ban political parties and organizations, we aren't a democracy anymore since we breaking the fundamental right of gathering ... And the political parties will continue to make their business in the shadow (PM), so leave them official, it will make things easier.
Concerning the alliances made, most of the parties are sharing the same point of view for the beginning of the game (Demo - planned) but when the game will be more advanced and as soon as we have new SE choices, you can be sure that many coalitions will break up.

[GePap]

In priciple, in a dem game, nothing political, especially the ability to congregate in whatever form one wishes, should be banned. How big is the CFC game? Last I heard, they are not that big, and to a certain extent, I fear they have a more dedicated group than apolyton- I mean, Apolyton as a site included games, such as SMAC, that are related but are not civ- does civfanatics have a AC section? or one for CtP? A site like Apolyton has a more varied populace, so I don't think we can or should infere that certain philosophical decisions, like party baning, wil work in Apoly if they worked in civfanatics.

Also, AC is different enough from Civ3 and civ2 to add many interesting facets- I mean, fooling with the Social engineering screen is nothing like any aspect of Civ3, and let not get started on unit dfesign wrkshop, or dealing with Planet- what if we have a rgoup that want so go nuts with Boreholes? There is certainly a need of some type of environmental group in this game- should it just 'propose', like the guilds in the cvi3dem game, or advocate, like a party?

don't ban parties: it is both counter to democracy in principle, and won't stop interest group or personal politics, perhaps just channel them into the personal realm, which would be no good.

[DarkCloud]

Let's get a political party that is against political parties
Vote #6 for banning With a big Grin

[Pandemoniak]

-Veto to the banning -

And yes, I want to keep parties, this is much more fun. If we see a two party game, or that parties are becoming boring, then people will either leave the game, either try to do something to change the things. (Ie declaring independance and take control of some bases, thus the game would be a multiplayer demo game or something...) But maybe its just because Im french ??

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Emvepe
The only communism I'm familiar with is leninism and marxism and I'm not interested in learning more.

Back on topic: I eat socks.

I like eating socks. MMM yummy socks.

Also I'd join the civ3 games but I don't have civ3. Also I know your just going to type 'BUT ITS ALL POLITICS YOU DONT NEED CIV3 YADA YADYADAYA'. I don't care. I have AC so I'm going to participate in this game, if I had civ3 I'd gladly participate in that as well.

Got socks?

You should really go to the Off Topic Forum. You would really fit in quite nicely with some of them



As the first Independent minded candidate, i would welcome less emphasis on party formation. It might be better to stick with just a few parties and let the members fight it out to see where the direction of that party goes. The way it is now everyone seems to be forming a party.


Lets start out with two or three parties, let the members decide on what the party will stand for and if during the course of the game a group decides that their party does not live up to the ideals that they believe in they can then start a splinter party. But this way of a party for every issue is just a little crazy. Of course that just may be the American in me

[Sprayber]

After reading Gepap, something came to mind. Maybe AC isnt exactly the best medium for this type of excercise. I mean the PKs are possibly the only faction where parties would even play a role in government. It the early days of a colonial society on a far away planet with little initial resources, people are gonna need to cooperate much more closely.

My suggestion is to start out with two parties(maybe three) and as time passes a little, we could gradually start breaking into smaller parties. When different SE choices become availiable different people then can go about creating their own parties. Right now in the beginning we are a frontier society. Hell we are still on the Unity for heavens sake and and we have parties lined up. Just my 2 cents.

[DeathByTheSword]

Why do we want to regulate the parties. the only bother you have is there threads. which you do not have to read. and when the game begins we can put it in the constitution that on certain threads not party-post maybe be post. to counter parties spamming the threads.

[AdamTG02]

Well, the parties seem to be in the process of evolving into three coalitions, based around Green Builder, FM Builder, and Warmonger.

I agree with those who have posted above that banning parties just isn't consistent with a democracy. Though I agree that parties can encourage bickering and factionalism, they don't have to. It's simply a choice of the individuals in the parties whether to work together or argue. And some argument is legitimate disagreement.

As a member of the EDP, I've tried to encourage less of an "Us vs. Them" attitude in the parties. How it will eventually develop remains to be seen, but in my mind we should give things a chance to develop, and then if parties are a problem we can always rethink them.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Juliennew
Look at the SP game, it is a battle of ideology and 7 persons made their faction to materialize their utopia. The political parties share different views of society and, like the faction in the SP game, founded political parties to materialize their point of view in the game. And like said some people here, the + of a demo game is debates and politic and I think political parties are part of this fun. The main problem Tass, it is the choice between participative democracy or a representative one. But if we ban political parties and organizations, we aren't a democracy anymore since we breaking the fundamental right of gathering ... And the political parties will continue to make their business in the shadow (PM), so leave them official, it will make things easier.
Concerning the alliances made, most of the parties are sharing the same point of view for the beginning of the game (Demo - planned) but when the game will be more advanced and as soon as we have new SE choices, you can be sure that many coalitions will break up.

i dunno.....its just, the civ3 demo game really disappointed me. first it was the game, and then the parties formed, and as time passed they merged, and then we have a two party system ,and those parties started to bicker, and then fight each other, and then inflated egos in those parties fought people of other parties, and......

The SMAC Demo Game is something I was really excited for. SMAC is one of my favorite games, and a demo game just sounded good. But, I think you can understand my worry. I just came from a demo game thats, well, not having fun with parties. And I just dont want that same mistake to be repeated here.

Green people can easily relate. They dont want the mistake of industrial earth to be repeated on planet But even if we dont ban parties, i really think we need to do something about the politics they present. Let us promise to planet that we will not repeat the tragedy of Civ3!!!

(Gaian quote altered, if you couldnt see )

[Maniac]

I agree with Tassadar. I for one will never allow this SMAC game to revert to a two-party system as in Civ3!

[DarkCloud]

My suggestion is to start out with two parties(maybe three) and as time passes a little, we could gradually start breaking into smaller parties. When different SE choices become availiable different people then can go about creating their own parties.

Good idea