The No Party party

[adaMada]

If the DIA and the Hawks (not sure if the UFC exists anymore) can coexist, supporting their respective goals without disagreeing on everything then I wouldn't mind. My personal problem is best given by an example... In a bout of party politics, Sir Ralph and Spiffor were arguing over if some war was necessary (I forget which). After going back and forth a few times, I found myself barely skimming their posts -- they were basically arguging back and forth over the same things, with both sides unwilling to cede that the other side had good points. I wish I could pull up the actual conversation, but I do remember having this feeling that it was a shame that two of our Civilization's most respected members had managed to almost null each other out so completely during that one conversation that I found myself almost skipping their posts (within that one conversation, of course -- I have nothing but respect for both Sir Ralph and Spiffor).

The war with Persia discussion, on the other hand, as yet to see a big arguement between parties in any of the discussion threads. I see a lot of productive conversation going on there, even amoungst people who disagree. I worry, however, that if parties start to get involved on a large scale, we'll find ourselves locked in that cycle of all the DIA members on one side behind one respected speaker and all the UFC/Hawk members on the other side behind another respected speaker.

Basically, if both parties can coexist without getting into major fights outside of election time, then I'd have no problem with Parties, and probably even consider them benefitial. I've just gotta see it before I believe it, that's all .

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Some of us are neither DIA or Hawk, in my case probably because neither side wants me....................

[Sean]

No party party?!?
Don''t spam with blatant contradiction in terms!
If you want to be independent, fine, just do it, i.e. be independent, but don't harp on about it!

It is a perfectly legitimate choice for each individual to make, but to form a "no party party" is a nonsense. Such a party stands for everything, and nothing.

Sean.

[adaMada]

Actually, a 'no party party', aka a group against the idea of having parties, makes some sense to me. Of course, no one will join it -- that'd negate the point of having it. But it is a good point for discussion about if parties are worth having, I think.

-- adaMada

[GodKing]

Stop talking politics please and pass me a beer. Thanks. I thought this was a party to get away from politics. Guess I was wrong. Where is that beer?

[Sean]

"Actually, a 'no party party', aka a group against the idea of having parties, makes some sense to me. Of course, no one will join it -- that'd negate the point of having it."

QED. Thanks.

[Nubclear]

I've been lurking for the past few hours, and i was wondering....

Isn't this the exact same thing Skywalker tried doing? Wasn't he completly blasted (By NYE IIRC) for doing it?

[jdd2007]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I've been lurking for the past few hours, and i was wondering....

Isn't this the exact same thing Skywalker tried doing? Wasn't he completly blasted (By NYE IIRC) for doing it?

there was other people trying out the idea long before Sky.

[Spiffor]

I completely disagree with the "no party party" or any other attempt of this kind (I remember the Unparty, the STOP, and skywalker's Independent party. No doubt there has been more and will be more).

Let me explain why I disagree with any form of "Unparty" : so far, all discussions are about middle- and short term policy. The aim of our discussions (in the military academy, Machiavelli institute and so on) is to meet the most optimal decisions. It's a good thing.

But it's not enough. The democracy game is not just about elaborating strategies. There is a latent, unsolvable debate about what kind of victory we want. Some think we should go for domination / conquest because they think war is more fun. Some think we should go for culture / spaceship because they feel more satisfied by this.
The question about the type of victory is essential (at least to me). I don't want our victory to be decided by the circumstances rather than by ourselves. And I think parties are the only place where this question can really be "discussed".

Lastly, NYE says he doesn't have to be represented, nor has to vote as per party's orders. He's right, we're a direct democracy. But parties here aren't about party discipline, and there are no "forced" votes... I understand parties have drawbacks (bringing ideology in some debates which require only rational analysis), but the horrible drawback they have IRL doesn't exist here IMO.

[Harovan]

Give all conventional parties a decent bury. Forget them. Boycott them. Don't elect their candidates.

Power to the No Party Party.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I understand parties have drawbacks (bringing ideology in some debates which require only rational analysis), but the horrible drawback they have IRL doesn't exist here IMO.

Personally, i see how the potential drawback of screwing up rational analasis hurts.

But, on an ideological level, i think the parties are too weak.

In the Ancient Era, under myself and Trip, the nation had no choice but to go on a war path. that was obvious. but now, that we can make decisions, with what has become a sizable empire, im disheartened to see that DIA has lost power when the time for building is so ripe.

Ideologically, I should never have been president in a time of war (being DIA at the time), and the first two governments should have been predominantly UFC. But now, that the time for building is good, the DIA has been lost, and not many of its members hold position any more, when voices for war are still loud.

Right now, rational thoughts on war should coincide with ideological ones, now that we have good options on both sides of the coin. But The nation seems to never leave the warpath, because the ideology of the builder is dying. There is always talks of the next target, and always talks of of building untill a certain tech, but that tech is never far off, thus keeping us in a war.

sorry, just my rant

[Apocalypse]

Arg. It is annoying to see you and Trip still around but not really doing anything very helpful.

[Ninot]

lol...admitt it, you miss us

[Apocalypse]

It is just that the current and future Vice Presidents are really strapped for time. I am mad at Trip more than you. He has been playing Europa and designing a new Civ3 scenario.

[notyoueither]

Stop jackin' my No Party party, you politicians!

Pass a