New Party?

We are talking about an unity in ebelgium, since this time we can see several players to try to pto a party.
It's a shame to do that, because if a person spent his golds to make one party, I do not understand why a group wants to steal a party.



That proves we have children in our congress.



And you said i'm a person who pushed someone to change votes ???

Elynea wrote:We are talking about an unity in ebelgium, since this time we can see several players to try to pto a party.
It's a shame to do that, because if a person spent his golds to make one party, I do not understand why a group wants to steal a party.

And again you are making comments about unity while pointing the finger and accusing.
That kind of behaviour is also not helping unity

Fhaemita Malodorous wrote:

Elynea wrote:We are talking about an unity in ebelgium, since this time we can see several players to try to pto a party.
It's a shame to do that, because if a person spent his golds to make one party, I do not understand why a group wants to steal a party.

And again you are making comments about unity while pointing the finger and accusing.
That kind of behaviour is also not helping unity

Lol ? This is an assertion and I prove it. Don't play with this word, you don't know the definition. Thanks

Fhaemita Malodorous wrote:

Elynea wrote:We are talking about an unity in ebelgium, since this time we can see several players to try to pto a party.
It's a shame to do that, because if a person spent his golds to make one party, I do not understand why a group wants to steal a party.

And again you are making comments about unity while pointing the finger and accusing.
That kind of behaviour is also not helping unity

So why not stop hostile take-overs and unite around a program, each in his own party? Then we could probably talk about issues instead of about personalities. As Sammy Tanghe says (glad he's still there!), calling for voters to move around is not needed in times of peace.

>Ppl speak of PTO's
>Checks election page
...
> 4 votes for levi
>PTO
>PTO
>PTO
>PTO


riiiiiiiiiiiiiight


(ITT ppl who don't know what a PTO is)

I voted for Levi <.<... I mean... But I see what you guys mean. An eBelgian running for PP of an eBelgian party? Outrageous =S

> mfw I hear me staging a PTO

On the reconciliation topic I asked you some days ago to leave Ward's party as a prove of good faith.

If you don't care about what I ask, why should I care about what you said?

This is just playing with fire again.

Oh... I see where Belgium is divided now... :3

RayCaptain wrote:Oh... I see where Belgium is divided now... :3

Cute. ^^




Olv, I concur.

And still we keep on

Please do the real right things and stay united this will not help.

Thank you, friends, for uniting against government PTO of the Om party. We won this round

Ward De Bever wrote:Thank you, friends, for uniting against government PTO of the Om party. We won this round

congratulations to you Ward and good luck for your party.

Ward De Bever wrote:Thank you, friends, for uniting against government PTO of the Om party. We won this round

repeating what I said earlier

shadowukcs wrote:ITT ppl who don't know what a PTO is

If ppl wanted to PTO your party, Ward, trust me when I say it would have happened.

We do not doubt a you Shadow, you are so honest, and a person working only to help the other Belgians.

/me hugs shadow

Yes! Let's all hug shadow

Adrien de Gerlache wrote:Yes! Let's all hug shadow

you can, it's the peace man

no, I'm not a hug man. I'm more of a "/shakes hand" man

Spare wheel, yes you saw just

shadowukcs wrote:no, I'm not a hug man. I'm more of a "/shakes hand" man

and a /dance with shadow man? are you that?

If we wanted to PTO it, we could of done so easily but it will not serve our interest at all. What is the point. There will be no political gain. So Om was never under a real threat. If we wanted to PTO it, Om would be ours and you would be here restarting the war.

konrad what's a funny guy

I don't have time to answer about your truth. I agree you 100 %


I think about Volsem in this moment, he losted his party. A new citizen (by the immigration) is the new president now. TheNewMark

http://www.erepublik.com/en/party-members/bunny-kommander-3780/1

If Om party had not had so many friends who came in for it, it would have been PTO'ed by now with 5 votes. The organised threat was very real. Even if now there's the claim that it wasn't a serious/useful action, it was certainly perceived as such by our party and heavy mobilisation (and waste of energy) was needed to counter it.

Let's only look at the past in order to learn lessons for the future. Can we try to avoid such waste of energy in the future?

Konrad, as you're skilled with semantics, can you agree to use the word 'we' when referring to the whole community? It would be more useful than the 'us against enemies' approach. It would be nice if we could still and again try to listen to each others' concerns.

Be assured that, under my presidency, the Om party will continue to try an inclusive view on *our* community. 'Good' anarchy is self-organised cooperation.

Elynea wrote:konrad what's a funny guy

I don't have time to answer about your truth. I agree you 100 %


I think about Volsem in this moment, he losted his party. A new citizen (by the immigration) is the new president now. TheNewMark

http://www.erepublik.com/en/party-members/bunny-kommander-3780/1

Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

ThomasRED wrote:

Elynea wrote:konrad what's a funny guy

I don't have time to answer about your truth. I agree you 100 %


I think about Volsem in this moment, he losted his party. A new citizen (by the immigration) is the new president now. TheNewMark

http://www.erepublik.com/en/party-members/bunny-kommander-3780/1

Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

Yeah strange, because i checked every party, but so late for this party or i would keep my vote for him -_-

ThomasRED wrote:
Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

yea, and?

He can't run for congress coz he isn't in the top5, he PTO'd a 2 man party, which is basically harmless and I don't see the big problem in this. (Other than Volsem who spend 40G making a party which he knew would get PTO'd eventually (if it wasn't this month, it would have been next month))

rah speedy write man... edit now.

It's never an action of a nice person that shadow... it's the game, but not beautiful act.

shadowukcs wrote:

ThomasRED wrote:
Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

yea, and?

He can't run for congress coz he isn't in the top5, he PTO'd a 2 man party, which is basically harmless and I don't see the big problem in this. (Other than Volsem who spend 40G making a party which he knew would get PTO'd eventually (if it wasn't this month, it would have been next month))

Can we expand on the concept of 'harmless PTO'? I think there are a few problems with it.

Elynea wrote:It's never an action of a nice person that shadow... it's the game, but not beautiful act.

Not a practical act either, since organising around party beliefs (for instance, individualism versus cooperation) could bring some much-needed peace/unity to our community.

It's the game yes, but do we need this kind of players as new immigrants for eBelgium ? To announce to be 2clicker until december and to "take" the new party of an other citizen on it first day, it seems contradictory and i don't get his behaviour...

ThomasRED wrote:It's the game yes, but do we need this kind of players as new immigrants for eBelgium ? To announce to be 2clicker until december and to "take" the new party of an other citizen on it first day, it seems contradictory and i don't get his behaviour...

Indeed, it's not a good start in our country.

shadowukcs wrote:

ThomasRED wrote:
Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

yea, and?

He can't run for congress coz he isn't in the top5, he PTO'd a 2 man party, which is basically harmless and I don't see the big problem in this. (Other than Volsem who spend 40G making a party which he knew would get PTO'd eventually (if it wasn't this month, it would have been next month))

+1

If you see, there were only 2 votes and he won since he has a higher experience. That is not a PTO. Also, new immigrants cannot run for PP? I see no problem here and TheNewMark exercise his rights and there is no problem at all.

There is no contradiction at all. Stop being petty and partisan and nip picking. This is an non-issue and this is part of the game. If you make a party with little to no people in it, it is natural for some other people to win it. Not out of malice but this is the norm. Especially in this case, where it is 1 vs 1 and the winner won by exp not by some huge take over with many people etc.

There is no problem.

Konrad Neumann wrote:

shadowukcs wrote:

ThomasRED wrote:
Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

yea, and?

He can't run for congress coz he isn't in the top5, he PTO'd a 2 man party, which is basically harmless and I don't see the big problem in this. (Other than Volsem who spend 40G making a party which he knew would get PTO'd eventually (if it wasn't this month, it would have been next month))

+1

If you see, there were only 2 votes and he won since he has a higher experience. That is not a PTO. Also, new immigrants cannot run for PP? I see no problem here and TheNewMark exercise his rights and there is no problem at all.

There is no contradiction at all. Stop being petty and partisan and nip picking. This is an non-issue and this is part of the game. If you make a party with little to no people in it, it is natural for some other people to win it. Not out of malice but this is the norm. Especially in this case, where it is 1 vs 1 and the winner won by exp not by some huge take over with many people etc.

There is no problem.

Konrad, can you also reply on my views about organising parties around beliefs/ideas/ideals/principles? If we want to achieve some understanding, we can start to talk to each other.

We can maybe find common ground on choosing ethics over raw in-game rules.

konrad thinks it's normal to be a new citizen (since few days), to check every party and to steal one...

A "two clicker"

Elynea wrote:konrad think it's normal to be a new citizen, to check every party and to steal this one...

I think an ethical behaviour by our community would be to respect Volsem's *political* views, explain TheNewMark that what he did is in-game correct but morally objectionable, and if he doesn't react (since he's a self-described 2-clicker), organise to give Volsem his party back on October 15th.

Again, it could bring some rest to the community if we simply stay in the party that corresponds to our own political view and have a respectful ideological debate from there. Taking an easy prey just because it can be taken is a moral choice as humans. We can and must have more evolved political/social/moral views as a community. At least agree to disagree, live and let live.

Ward De Bever wrote:

Konrad Neumann wrote:

shadowukcs wrote:

ThomasRED wrote:
Didnt he was approved because he said he will 2 click and that it is an experienced member, something eBE will benefit ? Strange behaviour... :-s

yea, and?

He can't run for congress coz he isn't in the top5, he PTO'd a 2 man party, which is basically harmless and I don't see the big problem in this. (Other than Volsem who spend 40G making a party which he knew would get PTO'd eventually (if it wasn't this month, it would have been next month))

+1

If you see, there were only 2 votes and he won since he has a higher experience. That is not a PTO. Also, new immigrants cannot run for PP? I see no problem here and TheNewMark exercise his rights and there is no problem at all.

There is no contradiction at all. Stop being petty and partisan and nip picking. This is an non-issue and this is part of the game. If you make a party with little to no people in it, it is natural for some other people to win it. Not out of malice but this is the norm. Especially in this case, where it is 1 vs 1 and the winner won by exp not by some huge take over with many people etc.

There is no problem.

Konrad, can you also reply on my views about organising parties around beliefs/ideas/ideals/principles? If we want to achieve some understanding, we can start to talk to each other.

We can maybe find common ground on choosing ethics over raw in-game rules.

I do not think there is an ethical problem as well. If we use the Benthamite ideals of utilitarianism, there is real opinion of this situation for it is 1v1 and it is hard to judge what is the greater good for there is no greater good. If we use the liberal view of ethics, both sides are exercising their political rights and there is no obstruction of personal liberty. Sadly the deciding factors is exp but both have a fair contest. If we are to use Kantian ethics, it is all about intention and as long as TheNewMark did not use people as a means to an end and that the person/ people are ends, then there is no Kantian ethical problem at all. And we cannot know what is TheNewMark's intention but only the end result.

Elynea wrote:konrad think it's normal to be a new citizen, to check every party and to steal this one...

There is no thief and it is fair play base on eRep rules. Extremely small parties of that nature are always at risk of getting new leadership. I feel for Volsem but there is no legal and ethical problem here unless you prove that TheNewMark used Volsem as means and not an end.

I don't say it was forbiden to do what he did, but i questionning the fact we accepted a 2clicker (the immigration debate is locked), because "we will benefit" of his experience... Strange experience to "steal" a new party on it first day of 2 clicker in a new country...

I think it is strange behavior that you insist in using loading language like stealing on an non issue. A person of your experience and time in this game should know better and about game rules and risk and trends etc.

Why are you continuing this discourse other than to start something political?

Konrad: you choose selected philosophers for your ethical views. However there are other philosophers who truly believe in the common/greater good, and some of our citizens see in-game advantages in the common (national) good. That is what I mean with 'organising parties around political beliefs' and I think it would be the most ethical behaviour we can agree upon as a community.

What is the "national good?"

Konrad Neumann wrote:What is the "national good?"

nation = Belgium = a definite in-game reality, the one which contains our political parties, CP/gov and citizenships.
The common good could also be seen as the 'eRep World', as does Rican in his views: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-grand-plan-part-3-1860970/1/20 - but that's not our first priority, let's first try to 'solve' our own issues.

Can you please reply on the essence?

Ward De Bever wrote:

Konrad Neumann wrote:What is the "national good?"

nation = Belgium = a definite in-game reality, the one which contains our political parties, CP/gov and citizenships.
The common good could also be seen as the 'eRep World', as does Rican in his views: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-grand-plan-part-3-1860970/1/20 - but that's not our first priority, let's first try to 'solve' our own issues.

Can you please reply on the essence?

But that is your assumption. There is no national good for there are many different competing interest and views of what is good. What is good for me might not be good for you etc. This general and monolithic term really does not describe anything. Most people that use national good or national interest really means personal interest or good.

Essence is the purpose and intent of the constitution. What is the reason for the constitution in its current form. The motivation and rational of the writers to use the wording as well as the structure of the institution. I guess you are referring to the different topic of legal precedence...

Konrad Neumann wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

Konrad Neumann wrote:What is the "national good?"

nation = Belgium = a definite in-game reality, the one which contains our political parties, CP/gov and citizenships.
The common good could also be seen as the 'eRep World', as does Rican in his views: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-grand-plan-part-3-1860970/1/20 - but that's not our first priority, let's first try to 'solve' our own issues.

Can you please reply on the essence?

But that is your assumption. There is no national good for there are many different competing interest and views of what is good. What is good for me might not be good for you etc. This general and monolithic term really does not describe anything. Most people that use national good or national interest really means personal interest or good.

So we agree that we disagree. That's maybe a step forward. Please don't say 'there is no national good'... but 'me and my party think there is no national good'...

Konrad Neumann wrote:Essence is the purpose and intent of the constitution. What is the reason for the constitution in its current form. The motivation and rational of the writers to use the wording as well as the structure of the institution. I guess you are referring to the different topic of legal precedence...

I need some more time to understand this reasoning, will you give it to me or provide an additional hint?

It is difficult to speak about things with somebody who has no same values.

Well it is kind of off topic but with the issue of the 24 hour vote. The purpose of the constitution is not solely for 24 hours for 24 hours is an arbitrary number base on our day cycle. The purpose and reason for the 24 hour debate is to secure enough/ proper time for there to be a debate and discussion of the topic. Therefore, bills etc are not voted after 5 mins of talk but after a good reasonable amount of time.

The essence of the law is not 24 hours to the letter, but was there enough or reasonable about of time to debate or discuss about it. Therefore, that 4 mins is meaningless or trivial for people can continue to debate etc but starting the vote innocently without knowing that it is 4 mins early does not take away the intent, meaning, essence of the law and therefore, the rejection of the Chairman of Congress and Senate law was silly and stupid.

If people want to defeat that bill, they should go to the SC and question the rule of the 2 laws in regards to is its relationship to the constitution. Is it an amendment or just a normal add on rule like the late NPNG or The Criminal Justice Act etc. But robbing the meaning and essence of the law for a one time political win is wrong and damaging to the society and the very purpose of the law.

OK, I see your point and the discussion (structure vs motivation) is already held in the SC public area.

If saying the motivation should define the structure, can we apply this to political parties? If so, can we talk further about 'organising parties around beliefs/priciples/ideas/motivations' and the practical/semantical value it can have for our community (less hostility and misunderstandings)?

Ok, nobody was harmed (excepted Volsem maybe, but we can't blame anyone for it).

I think that we can lock this thread as there has nothing that could be added ^^.

Suggesting that Volsem deserved his take-over is not a satisfying end to this debate I think.

How can we prevent such kind of hostility in the future?

I made a suggestion on organising parties around beliefs and await in-depth reply. No lock please.

I think we can lock this.

We already have a reconciliation thread base on the idea of eBE community base on the assumption that we want eBE to continue as one national community without splintering.

Konrad: do you mean http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4222-political-reconciliation ?

Just assuming that we want to continue as one community while seeing that some continue to threaten to leave the community (as in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4240-proposal-for-new-directors-debate-thread ) is not a satisfying conclusion for me.

I think threads should be locked only when the debate is totally out of control, or maybe when good conclusions were reached, which is not the case here yet.

I saw that the immigration thread of TheNewMark was locked for instance, disallowing further feedback.

It seems you have miscomprehended my comments so I'll translate them into French for your understanding.

Membres du parti Res Belgica, je suis le seul candidat pour le parti, s'il vous plaît déplacer et voter ailleurs, contribuer à la société belge!

My second comment:

Nope, je laisse les membres de mon parti choisir où ils veulent voter comme je suis le seul candidat de mon parti. Comme je l'ai dit, sa leur décision. Je ne veux pas qu'ils politiquement reprise parties si elles ne veulent pas trop.