Discussion with TR - Demands of the opposition

ThomasRed


As you have seen by now, there is a enormous discontent about your presidency so far. You do not listen to the public and every election again, you use zombies/sheepvoters/2clickers to get your victory. By now, you have also seen the large amount of active players who are involved in the opposition.

We do not want the country to burn, we want dialogue. In the past you laughed with us, I hope now you will take us serious.

Our primary demand is the following:

We want pre-elections as explained in manong's post in Congress and in my article. Every month, right after the PP elections, each of the top 5 parties holds a internal party vote. In this vote they decide if they want to run a candidate and who this will be. Then these Candidates get 1 week to organize a campaign for the elections. After this 1 week each top5 party must chose 1 candidate they want to back up. They must do this by a vote in their private party forums. This candidate CANNOT be from their own party. Each party has 1 vote it can cast. In case of a tie, a second round is held. The winner of this round will be put forward as candidate and will be supported by all 5 parties.

If one of the Party presidents refuses to do this or fails to cooperate, we will see them as a PTO’er and a enemy of eBelgium and our democracy. The other parties can PTO that party and can outlaw their candidate. This will make him enemy of eBelgium and remove his government forum access.



TR, for too long there has been a cancer named sheepvoters in eBE. WE WANT THIS END!

All party presidents, except BfB, can find themselves in the idea of pre-elections. It's a mean to ensure that the most active, best suited person wins. I say it's time that BfB holds a discussion to review this.

I no longer wish to work with you and your party after your PTO attempts with BfB. There is not excuse for going after your own kind. We are a small community, trust is a very important matter.

I'm against either. For the same reason that I've always been. I don't want the NL system to work here.

Im totally against it, every party one vote? So for example the two active members of Groen! have the same to say as the 12 active members of BfB or RB?

Glenn Wauters wrote:Im totally against it, every party one vote? So for example the two active members of Groen! have the same to say as the 12 active members of BfB or RB?

Same reason I don't like it...
and anonymous voting would be non existing too.

Manong Rizal wrote:I no longer wish to work with you and your party after your PTO attempts with BfB. There is not excuse for going after your own kind. We are a small community, trust is a very important matter.

It seems the feeling is mutual BfB never wanted to really work with us anyway.

Glenn Wauters wrote:Im totally against it, every party one vote? So for example the two active members of Groen! have the same to say as the 12 active members of BfB or RB?

it can be brought down to the top3 or top 4 if it becomes apparent that 1 or 2 parties are completely abandoned or PTO'd.


Besides, this is only 1 proposal to tackle sheepvoters. If anyone has a better proposal, feel free to propose it, but we don't stop until a solution is found to put sheepvoters out of the game. Simple.

Like I said in my comments on the newspaper: These 2-clickers are also a part of the eBelgium community and have a right to cast a vote. I don't see why only active people should have the right to vote. This is not how democracy works in my opinion.

shadowukcs wrote:

Glenn Wauters wrote:Im totally against it, every party one vote? So for example the two active members of Groen! have the same to say as the 12 active members of BfB or RB?

it can be brought down to the top3 or top 4 if it becomes apparent that 1 or 2 parties are completely abandoned or PTO'd.


Besides, this is only 1 proposal to tackle sheepvoters. If anyone has a better proposal, feel free to propose it, but we don't stop until a solution is found to put sheepvoters out of the game. Simple.

One better solution to this would be to simply hold a vote on the forum where everyone (with Belgian Citizenship) can vote
But I still dont like it, anyway, Im off, Im getting myself to the neutral zone

Glenn Wauters wrote:

shadowukcs wrote:

Glenn Wauters wrote:Im totally against it, every party one vote? So for example the two active members of Groen! have the same to say as the 12 active members of BfB or RB?

it can be brought down to the top3 or top 4 if it becomes apparent that 1 or 2 parties are completely abandoned or PTO'd.


Besides, this is only 1 proposal to tackle sheepvoters. If anyone has a better proposal, feel free to propose it, but we don't stop until a solution is found to put sheepvoters out of the game. Simple.

One better solution to this would be to simply hold a vote on the forum where everyone (with Belgian Citizenship) can vote
But I still dont like it, anyway, Im off, Im getting myself to the neutral zone

I can find myself in such a thing as well. Problem is organising it. The party idea is easier to work out. Nevertheless I don't mind giving this a try for the next election

The forum is not the game, i speak with 3 persons who are belgians and they don't want come here. I understand why.

Against. If bfb did your action in the past, you should be angry, and they had the possibility to make that. Respect before all.

i agree Manong.

Ah, don't worry about the Groen Party, its been PTO'd because of all this...thanks guys!

Manong Rizal wrote:I no longer wish to work with you and your party after your PTO attempts with BfB. There is not excuse for going after your own kind. We are a small community, trust is a very important matter.

i 100% agree with this comment trying a PTO is not a way to open talks what if Critically won would we have had a say to this in the first place ? i think not

Elynea wrote:The forum is not the game, i speak with 3 persons who are belgians and they don't want come here. I understand why.

You talk to your multies?

>Attempted PTO
>Kill party politics
>Destroy traditional democracy and allow 2 people the same say as 20

No thanks

temujin94 wrote:
>Destroy traditional democracy and allow 2 people the same say as 20

No thanks

that's a perfect description of what BfB and TR are doing today

Fhaemita Malodorous wrote:

Elynea wrote:The forum is not the game, i speak with 3 persons who are belgians and they don't want come here. I understand why.

You talk to your multies?

yeah maybe... you can contact columbo to know

I have come to hate these threads - I really do have better things to be doing than replying to them.

Two-clickers, no matter what you may call them, are a part of the Belgian community, they simply do not actively participate in the social aspect of it. However, they do still vote, and preventing them from voting in the CP election is impossible due to game mechanics. You can keep them from selecting the CP candidates, but that was never in the hands of anyone but the active citizens anyway. The parties will, as always, select as CP candidates whoever they so choose. If they can convince the most two-clickers to vote for their candidate over the others, then there is no way around it. We must always consider the game mechanics.

As I commented in an article (which might be a couple of days old, I haven't really been following the media for a couple of days until this issue was brought to my attention), there must be other, better ways to tackle the BfB hegemony if it bothers you so much, but attempting a PTO looks a little disturbed ( and disturbing) to me. Gather the underground opposition in one party and give it a patriotic/nationalistic name, and when you become numero uno, hope for the sheep voting effect during the next elections. Now it just looks like some personal feuds or feelings of antipathy are being blown up to a national scale, and I can't see how this will benefit the community as a whole.

Aldous Zamiatin wrote:As I commented in an article (which might be a couple of days old, I haven't really been following the media for a couple of days until this issue was brought to my attention), there must be other, better ways to tackle the BfB hegemony if it bothers you so much, but attempting a PTO looks a little disturbed ( and disturbing) to me. Gather the underground opposition in one party and give it a patriotic/nationalistic name, and when you become numero uno, hope for the sheep voting effect during the next elections. Now it just looks like some personal feuds or feelings of antipathy are being blown up to a national scale, and I can't see how this will benefit the community as a whole.

+1

Although I totally understand the frustration that lead to this action.

We can argue about the way it all happened, but it has happened and we have to live with it and get on.
The more important question is why ?
and then we return to:

someone said:
We perfectly know the reason of the why, but we disagree with that reason. The current problem is that your opinion and ours about the people that should be on the election list is kinda different. And I think that'll be pretty hard to change the point of view from any of the sides.

and similarities to RL Belgium ...

Aldous Zamiatin wrote:As I commented in an article (which might be a couple of days old, I haven't really been following the media for a couple of days until this issue was brought to my attention), there must be other, better ways to tackle the BfB hegemony if it bothers you so much, but attempting a PTO looks a little disturbed ( and disturbing) to me. Gather the underground opposition in one party and give it a patriotic/nationalistic name, and when you become numero uno, hope for the sheep voting effect during the next elections. Now it just looks like some personal feuds or feelings of antipathy are being blown up to a national scale, and I can't see how this will benefit the community as a whole.

we've been trying other ways for months now. At a certain point, you have to face the facts and conclude that it's the only possible way that remains.

I disagree, shadow, and I do not feel that it is assumed you are speaking for me. I will be publishing an article explaining what I think is the better way to do this.