Partisan and Proud
Day 779, 16:54
•
Published in Ireland 
•
by
•
by Brian Boru
First of all, I would like you all to read this article, as it demonstrates the same principle as this article.
As the title suggests, I will talk about partisanship, and the importance of party independence.
Presidential candidate moomoohead, in his manifesto for the election, stated that he would only form a cabinet from parties that supported him in the election race. Immediately, people pounced on him, crying about partisanship.
Most people referred to some sort of disarray brought about by party politics, and I quote:
"Moo seems to be reembracing deeply partisan politics which were all the rage when eIreland was a place solely for political roleplaying, to the neglect of the game mechanics and our military."
- Sean Power
I think that extract from Sean Power's rebuttal says it all.
Other than being myself reminded to remind Sean that our progress from obscurity began under the ISRP before the end of party politics, it is clear that the main complaint against partisanship is that it doesn't follow the game mechanics, therefore it is not in the interest of the country.
This "game-mechanicist" ideology is deeply flawed.
Other than the amusing fact that cabinets by definition are not part of the game mechanics, there is a much more serious problem: If partisanship and party politics are declared to be against the national interest, then how are we to determine the national interest in the first place?
To cite the example in my American friend's article:
Game-Mechanicists: "Our movement seeks to attain victory for our nation by convincing all citizens to put aside partisan differences and work together in the national interest."
Reasonable Person: "Sounds great. How do we decide what the national interests are?"
Partisan differences normally exist for a reason. They are essential for democracy to exist, for the people to be given a real choice. Otherwise, you have almost the same people being elected all the time, and the Cabinet being selected from that same group.
Personal perception of cabinet candidates now trumps ideology and politics, hardly a good thing for a healthy democracy!
As the title suggests, I will talk about partisanship, and the importance of party independence.
Presidential candidate moomoohead, in his manifesto for the election, stated that he would only form a cabinet from parties that supported him in the election race. Immediately, people pounced on him, crying about partisanship.
Most people referred to some sort of disarray brought about by party politics, and I quote:
"Moo seems to be reembracing deeply partisan politics which were all the rage when eIreland was a place solely for political roleplaying, to the neglect of the game mechanics and our military."
- Sean Power
I think that extract from Sean Power's rebuttal says it all.
Other than being myself reminded to remind Sean that our progress from obscurity began under the ISRP before the end of party politics, it is clear that the main complaint against partisanship is that it doesn't follow the game mechanics, therefore it is not in the interest of the country.
This "game-mechanicist" ideology is deeply flawed.
Other than the amusing fact that cabinets by definition are not part of the game mechanics, there is a much more serious problem: If partisanship and party politics are declared to be against the national interest, then how are we to determine the national interest in the first place?
To cite the example in my American friend's article:
Game-Mechanicists: "Our movement seeks to attain victory for our nation by convincing all citizens to put aside partisan differences and work together in the national interest."
Reasonable Person: "Sounds great. How do we decide what the national interests are?"
Partisan differences normally exist for a reason. They are essential for democracy to exist, for the people to be given a real choice. Otherwise, you have almost the same people being elected all the time, and the Cabinet being selected from that same group.
Personal perception of cabinet candidates now trumps ideology and politics, hardly a good thing for a healthy democracy!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
leave the thinking to us grown ups in the future
thanks
Who the hell are you?
I completely agree, game mechanist ideology itself is not based solely around the full spectrum of game mechanics, but just how the game-mechanists want to play. Their problem is they perceive the way they play as the only way to play, if you don't want to play how they do you're a role player and stupid. They just totally ignore that they play in the fields of politics, that they "role play" just as much, if not more, than the average player.
shite article, sorry bud
James Campbell do you actually have anything productive to say or just more childish mudslinging?
haha... yeah just pretty much more of the same.... get ready... this sh*t is about to get heavy
@Fred one...two...three...I counted the word "play" or "player" eight times in that comment. Huh. Facinating.
Sorry, got distracted. Ok. The article.
"Partisan Politics" has a negative connotation. Most people will look at it as someone supporting their own party views so rigidly that they are unwilling to admit that they other party might be doing something right. It's that fanatically militant dedication to a party over the good of the country that people object to.
So I don't understand why you are making a fuss about it when that is what partisan politics is.
As defined by Meriam-Webster:
"a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance"
Is there any wonder why we DON'T want this in our country?
voted
Edana's comment. Woot woot. 🙂
Party politics is the foundation which national politic is built upon.
Party Politics BS destroys National unity and makes me Very P$$$ed off
*Note to Self: never come on this game drunk 😉*
""Partisan Politics" has a negative connotation. Most people will look at it as someone supporting their own party views so rigidly that they are unwilling to admit that they other party might be doing something right. It's that fanatically militant dedication to a party over the good of the country that people object to. "
That view is partisan in itself.
One problem with being partisan in this country is the fact that many of the parties have very few major differences between them, which is why you see party "alliances" during elections. That never happens in RL, and for a reason.
During my first few days after starting this game I spent hours and hours trying to figure out what each party stood for and how they differed from each other, and quite frankly, those differences turned out to minor in nature.
So, what we really have is a partisanship based not on strong ideological differences, but on a "My Team vs Your Team" competition.
That kind of partisanship doesnt help or constructively add to the governing of the country, and until the parties change that, "partisan" will remain a dirty word.
BB sia😛 "it is clear that the main complaint against partisanship is that it doesn't follow the game mechanics, therefore it is not in the interest of the country."
Just to clarify that my main complaint against partisanship was contained in the underlying text of the article Brian has quoted me from and not some strange and disjointed argument that it doesn't follow game mechanics.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/the-gateway-drug-192806/1" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/th[..]06/1
Notice my use of "sole" in relation to roleplaying.... surely noone could legitimately claim that those in high office can roleplay this game in complete disregard of game mechanics without detrimental consequences. Similarly the game is a harsh mechanical world if viewed solely through the eyes of the mechanics without regard to the social element. Balance is the key... a balance that is much more difficult to maintain when engaged in pitched political battles over nothing... rather than reasoned debate on conflicting viewpoints where those engaged in debate respect eachother.
You set up the strawman (the mechanics purist ideology) and knock him down.... I'm completely in agreement of your statements on how ridiculous such a limited and narrow outlook it is.
@Brian That's the best you could come back with? I'm disappointed. 🙁
So you don't agree with Meriam-Webster's definition of "partisan"?
How is it a partisan view to put your country before your party?
Sean, pitched political battles rarely happen over nothing.
It is up to the people to elect representatives that are above the petty fighting, so that they can be effective when the real fighting has to be done.
However, the current trend says that any fighting (or any disagreement) is a sign of disunity and weakness, which basically promotes the idea of a single path to "winning the game".
Sean, while you may not subscribe to the idea of pure game mechanicism, your beliefs and that ideology are inevitably linked, as "partisan" behaviour, i.e. disagreeing, is not tolerated.
Edana, if quoting a dictionary is the best you can do, I'm disappointed. I'm a law student and you're (supposedly) a writer, both of us know that words have definitions beyond those found in a dictionary.
Both of you subscribe to the idea of unity and anti-partisanship to advance the country, but neither of you have answered a far more critical question:
How are we to decide what is the best path to advance the country on? If we cannot have party lines to follow, how are voters to have any consistent choice?