Have We Entered a New Phase? – Mechanicists or Mechanics Taking Over
Day 698, 09:14
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Rheinlander von Phalz
18 October 2009, Day 698 of the New World. Politicians routinely have to juggle differing viewpoints, affiliations, and ideologies. One large field of debate, which many Congressional hopefuls make reference to in their platforms, is how strongly dependent political positions should be on the mechanics of the eWorld. The set of rules of the eWorld – organizations, initiative, wellness, money markets, value added tax, etc – are not open to change by politicians; politics are constrained by mechanics, not the other way around.
In times now past, debates were more heavily grounded in ideology. A Congressman would identify with his political affiliation more strongly than today, and political parties formed around ideologies. Remnants of that time can still be seen in the names of some of the parties – the Libertarian Party, the Conservative Party, the Federalist Party, the Democratic Party, The Green Party (formerly “US Green Party,” name change may have been made by a party president widely recognized as illegitimate), and the Republican Party.
The mechanics of the eWorld became stronger and stronger considerations as time went on. Candidates for Congress now openly identify as mechanicists (and sometimes actually are). Many of the parties have moved away from their ideological basis towards mechanical considerations. The Federalist Party is a good example of this, as is the Libertarian Party; an article from a member of that party recently appeared and declared, “turns out we’re not libertarians.”
The Democratic Party is the strongest example of leaning towards game mechanics. After reorganization by the former United States president, Harrison Richardson, and the former President of Singapore, ExoM7, the Democratic Party is now solely focused on game mechanics.
Political parties are becoming more similar under mechanics.
Mechanical consideration was the genesis of what has become known as “fortress strategy,” which is presently employed by the United States. Extremely large population is concentrated in one or two regions, drastically reducing the number of hospitals that need to be produced and creating undefeatable walls and attack costs that will break a nation’s bank. Most regions of the rest of the country, sometimes called the Wasteland, are not very important from a mechanical point of view.
Population distribution, seen here shortly after the establishment of a Q5 hospital in California, is a prime example of fortress strategy
While the mechanics movement has been relatively popular and successful, reaching numerous political parties, backlash against it has begun to appear. This is not from ignorance of mechanics or fortress strategy, as is often displayed in some Congressional platforms and causes resignation on occasion, but knowing rejection of them.
“America was beautiful back when it had scattered hospitals, even if that strategy sucked. It at least felt like the government cared and the country was real.”
One may then ask why we use fortress strategy or have become more inclined towards game mechanics. Certainly it was not a drive to make America less beautiful. Competition is often the spur of innovation, and the United States has had to adjust itself to meet the demands of its competitors, the PEACE Global Community. If we had hospitals less than quality five in multiple regions, those citizens would have less damage capability than the Florida and California residents. Why damage capability matters is our conflict with PEACE. A more “beautiful” country, where people can live wherever they want, is a country that Hungary and Indonesia can conquer. A strong America, versed in the realities of the eWorld, is one they cannot.
“The game mechanics have taken over this country. If that is what you all want then fine. I'm sure we'll have great fortresses and strategic planning, but it has gotten to the point where Congress is just a big efficiency calculator and rubber stamp for the various groups that really control the eUSA.”
Game mechanicists did not take over the country. The trend towards mechanical considerations has been present for a long time. It was really game mechanics that took over people and the country, not individual agents with some twisted political agenda. If our opponents are practicing something we are not, getting stronger while we idle, we suffer ourselves a disadvantage. Mechanicists did not take over the country; the eWorld took over the thoughts of the mechanicists.
In times now past, debates were more heavily grounded in ideology. A Congressman would identify with his political affiliation more strongly than today, and political parties formed around ideologies. Remnants of that time can still be seen in the names of some of the parties – the Libertarian Party, the Conservative Party, the Federalist Party, the Democratic Party, The Green Party (formerly “US Green Party,” name change may have been made by a party president widely recognized as illegitimate), and the Republican Party.
The mechanics of the eWorld became stronger and stronger considerations as time went on. Candidates for Congress now openly identify as mechanicists (and sometimes actually are). Many of the parties have moved away from their ideological basis towards mechanical considerations. The Federalist Party is a good example of this, as is the Libertarian Party; an article from a member of that party recently appeared and declared, “turns out we’re not libertarians.”
The Democratic Party is the strongest example of leaning towards game mechanics. After reorganization by the former United States president, Harrison Richardson, and the former President of Singapore, ExoM7, the Democratic Party is now solely focused on game mechanics.
Political parties are becoming more similar under mechanics.
Mechanical consideration was the genesis of what has become known as “fortress strategy,” which is presently employed by the United States. Extremely large population is concentrated in one or two regions, drastically reducing the number of hospitals that need to be produced and creating undefeatable walls and attack costs that will break a nation’s bank. Most regions of the rest of the country, sometimes called the Wasteland, are not very important from a mechanical point of view.
Population distribution, seen here shortly after the establishment of a Q5 hospital in California, is a prime example of fortress strategy
While the mechanics movement has been relatively popular and successful, reaching numerous political parties, backlash against it has begun to appear. This is not from ignorance of mechanics or fortress strategy, as is often displayed in some Congressional platforms and causes resignation on occasion, but knowing rejection of them.
“America was beautiful back when it had scattered hospitals, even if that strategy sucked. It at least felt like the government cared and the country was real.”
One may then ask why we use fortress strategy or have become more inclined towards game mechanics. Certainly it was not a drive to make America less beautiful. Competition is often the spur of innovation, and the United States has had to adjust itself to meet the demands of its competitors, the PEACE Global Community. If we had hospitals less than quality five in multiple regions, those citizens would have less damage capability than the Florida and California residents. Why damage capability matters is our conflict with PEACE. A more “beautiful” country, where people can live wherever they want, is a country that Hungary and Indonesia can conquer. A strong America, versed in the realities of the eWorld, is one they cannot.
“The game mechanics have taken over this country. If that is what you all want then fine. I'm sure we'll have great fortresses and strategic planning, but it has gotten to the point where Congress is just a big efficiency calculator and rubber stamp for the various groups that really control the eUSA.”
Game mechanicists did not take over the country. The trend towards mechanical considerations has been present for a long time. It was really game mechanics that took over people and the country, not individual agents with some twisted political agenda. If our opponents are practicing something we are not, getting stronger while we idle, we suffer ourselves a disadvantage. Mechanicists did not take over the country; the eWorld took over the thoughts of the mechanicists.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
AMERIMAXX!!! AND HAI!
Good article
A good article, and I did vote!
But as an anti-mechanicist, I just have to point out two things:
1) Mechanicists are often extremely loud in their denunciation of all dissent. They dominate the government and they have little patience for other views. Hence the perception that they have taken over. Yes, I know that roleplaying ideologues do the same, and it is likely that mechanicists are responding in kind. The real problem is our culture of public discourse.
2) Mechanicism IS an ideology that serves the interests of beta-giants. It is the mistaken belief that knowing what the game will allow you to do determines what you SHOULD do. It leaps over several logical steps in an attempt to cut off argument ex ante.
The hospital strategy is a classic example of this. As we struggle to keep players interested and active, our leaders constantly berate anyone who doesn't want to move to FL. They don't understand the importance of "beauty", or "fun", or participation in smaller communities to which one feels attached.
Eventually, anyone who is bored by math quits. Only the mechanicists remain. This further convinces them they are right.
There is another argument against mechanics for a strategic view. Mechanics is important to keep in mind but some people focus on mechanics while ignoring "realist" thought. It was manipulation of people that brought us our victories against eIndonesia and ePortugal. It was by manipulating eRussia and eIndonesia through peace agreements that we cracked open their monolith and established the divisions we later used to beat them back individually. This strategy also helped us beat France in Spain and Canada. Mechanisist though helped us beat eRussia in N.America and Scandinavia. So, it is important to balance the use of both philosophies to maximize the benefit of the nation.
Note: I don't consider ideology to be a viable political strategy to contend against either mechanisist or realist strategies. Ideology is simply the placement of what you wish to be true about what is actually true.
In the real world, political parties are mechanicist. Government policy is not about abstract esthetic philosophical perfection; it's about finding the best and most practical ways for people to live together and defend their borders and rights *given the realities of the physical universe and human nature which we have no choice but to accept*. The policies we choose are those which we think will, practically, in the real world, lead to the most desirable outcomes.
The rules of this game are vastly simpler than the "rules of the game" for real life, but the same principle applies. Policy is determined by our prediction of what policies will lead to the outcomes we desire. A policy which leads to defeat by another nation is objectively inferior to one which does not, whether in the real world of the game world.
If the objection is that suspension of disbelief is shattered when the optimal policies in game are too different from what would be optimal policies in real life, that's an objection against the structure of the game, not the behavior of its players. If you want to play a game where you can ignore the fact that you are playing a game, and just rely on real-world intuition to guide your behavior and responses, eRepublik is not that game.
I agree 100% with CommandanteDavid.
Something I have been trying to drum into the heads of rl romanticists in eCanada.
Stop trying to find parallels between the two.
One is real, one is a game.
All that is common is geography.
The boundaries of this game are fuzzy.
Seems to me there's room enough for mechanists, realists, idealists, romantics and warriors in this game. I'd say, whatever your perspective, strive to play it with dignity, respect and honor.
And there's plenty of examples around of how to do that, comandantedavid being one of the best, the Fed Party in general being another.
Mechanism is the way to go.
Romanticism is what put the eUSA in such a position of weakness.
IMHO (heh) there are legitimate splits within the mechanist movement. comandantedavid isn't anti-mechanist, he's anti-Mechanist.
There are those who argue that there is only ONE way to win with Game Mechanics, which leads to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them is flat out wrong. They are mistaken and, more importantly, silence the creativity which gives birth to new strategies to use the Game Mechanics. Remember: The Region Swap was an *innovation*.
Personally, I welcome debates over policies which are rooted Game Mechanics but am easily annoyed by those who feel that there can only be one right answer.
Great article, but I must make a statement:
"Mechanicism IS an ideology that serves the interests of beta-giants."
This is entirely false. The BETA Giants were mostly split down the middle between Ideology and Mechanicism, and it was not until January when two *V1 Babies* ("One" had an "Eye" and the other was a "Jew" and apparently did "it") came to the scene they argued for an all-mechanic approach to economy and war strategy. To this day, the two of those still do it but somehow the blame is on BETA Giants, when it was two V1 babies that made it a national issue.
Voted, for me. 😛
I stand corrected in several important particulars!
However, I am VERY happy to see Jewitt's turn to something called "realism" toward the social aspect of the game.
This DOES seem to me to be a move past "mechanicism", to a less ideological approach that combines a thorough tactical knowledge of game mechanics with political savvy - in short, people skills!