Overmoderation

[TheNewGuy]

Doc, Thank you for your offer to join Kalistan but I have no interest in this. I would like the rules to be changed so I can continue my role play in Mordusia.

I don't think this is a healthy attitude. Let's build an analogy: sure, in real life, there are some people who steal for legitimate reasons - think "my child is sick and I cannot afford her bills" - and even though we can understand their motivation and respect it as positive it doesn't mean that we should legalize thievery. The law exists, and even if your motivation is good you've got to realize that not everyone's is and we need the law to maintain order.

You broke the rules, you refused to respect a direct (and polite) request from Moderation to comply, and then you started this post as a hissy fit when you didn't get your way. I think you shouldn't expect the rules to change to accommodate you, but vice versa.

[Doc]

Doc says, "Nobody gets into politics to promote fundamental revolution."
This is absolutely NOT true. The Nazi party is a perfect example of how inaccurate this statement is. You could probably find 1,000 more examples throughout history but I think this one will sufficiently back up my argument here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fe ... tion,_1930

Ah well- the Nazis... They demonstrate just how false every statement about politics is! That's hardly a good example, just because it is so incredibly extreme, and represents the outlier in just about every situation. Like saying "Well all politicians do things in order to get re-elected." and being responded to "Nu-huh! What about Hitler? He didn't ever want to be re-elected!" or "Politicians generally want to do what is in the interests of their population." and then you respond. "no way! This is absolutely and completely false! Because Hitler." You may be able to find 1000 examples across the roughly 5000 years of recorded human history which shows that this is the case, as you say, but what about the x-thousand examples where it is not the case? We have 44 specific examples in the United States which are counter to the one case you offer in Nazi Germany, where the head of state was specifically NOT interested in regime change, nor were the people they ran against and beat, which is in the hundreds. Here is a list of ALL the people in the United States who have ever run and lost in the General election, and ALL of those people agreed to play by the rules of the regime, and would have taken the constitutional oath of office if elected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... candidates. What about ALL the people who ran in the primaries, and all the minor candidates that didn't make it onto the ballot, but were running anyway? It is fairly safe to assume that those people were also willing to take the oath of office and not change the regime on the odd chance that they were actually elected to something too.

That took me exactly 20 seconds to locate on the internet. And that is just one country, for just 228 years. How many other countries in that period of time had democratic or republican (small d, small r) governments whose politicians attempted to run for office specifically to overthrow the constitutional regime? And how many governments have existed in the whole history of mankind, where the rulers existed to uphold the political regime rather than completely overturn it? Surely it must be in the tens of thousands. Compared to your one Hitler, and the potentially 1000 others who sought to use the political system itself to destroy it.

But- alright, fair enough. I need to clarify all of my statements, that unless I explicitly INCLUDE the Nazis, I implicitly EXCLUDE THEM and all others that are like them when I make general statements. The Nazi example is NEVER generalizable because it is so incredible aberrant and extreme. When I was talking about politics I was talking about AMERICAN politics at the time, as all my examples SHOULD have tipped any reasonable person off to.

[errant sperm]

If you think I am "throwing a hissy fit" then you have a right to your opinion. But I have a right to mine as well. This is a constructive criticism of the current rules. We are all arguing for our own points of view. I fully admit, I broke the rules. At the time I broke them, I didn't realize I was breaking them. I just felt like I doing a fair and reasonable role play. I fully admit, I don't like the rules and I want them changed. This doesn't mean I will get what I want but I think all players' opinions are important, including mine. I think the point of this forum is to express our opinions.

If you don't like the Nazi example then I will give another. The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire partly due to revolutionary changes enacted by an elected official, Gaius Gracchus. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic
Again, Doc said "Nobody gets into politics to promote fundamental revolution." I have proven that this statement is not true with yet another example. Using the word "Nobody" is not a general statement. It is a statement that excludes everyone which, again, is totally inaccurate. I could go on and on with more examples. The United States has had revolutionary changes as well. Abraham Lincoln denounced the Dred Scott decision before he was elected President. He had an agenda to end slavery, which was revolutionary for the United States. So revolutionary and controversial that it resulted in civil war and Constitutional Amendment. Almost everyone gets into politics because they want to change at least a few things. Some want to make "revolutionary changes." Its not just Hitler. Hitler is just one good example of someone who successfully made revolutionary changes. (even though they resulted in disaster)

So the United States has been around for 228 years. Particracy has over 2 millennia of game years. Considering how many countries are in the game, if you are looking for realism, revolutions should be happening all the time.

I am not a mind reader Doc. If you are referring to only American politics when you make a statement then you should say so but you can't say the word "Nobody" and then say that it is a generalized statement. Its not a generalized statement, its a false statement. In Particracy we are dealing with over 50 fictional nations, not just one real one.

I don't think the Nazi example is as extreme as you say it is. Its just one of the more recent and more popularized examples of revolutionary action by elected officials.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

So, you want change. However, I see that what you really want is change that is very fast for this game. You want your change to occur in 10 in game years after making a few posts and/or bills/statements here and there. How I see it is that you are unwilling to wait it out and continue with your RP of change for the long haul. Because the rules enforce gradual change over decades, you are upset. This is a very easy to solve problem. Like I said, pick a nation that aligns as close to what you want and conduct your RP over a period of IG decades to make the changes.

Yes, you will have to probably interact with other players who may or may not be opposed to your changes, but as many have said, that is the game.

For example, you cannot reasonably expect that after 10 IG years of RP in Mordusia as a Valruzian minority party to implement drastic demographic changes. You cannot simply say, "50 million people have migrated from Valruzia to Mordusia while 50 million Mordusians died from disease, therefore, Mordusia now has an equal amount of both ethnic groups justifying adding Valruzian aspects to everything in addition to Mordusian aspects." That is highly unrealistic. You need to coordinate with other players instead of expecting Moderation to enforce what you want. Right now, you are acting, in my view, like those who you are railing against, you simply want the opposite.

And, yes, there is a group of players that can be considered more "established". It is naturally for such groupings to form because we all have similar experiences and ideas, just like it is natural for other like minded players to establish other groupings. This is not to say that these groups are official. I can assure you, I have not entered a secret pact with other older players to plan how we are going to get what we want.

[Doc]

I am not a mind reader Doc. If you are referring to only American politics when you make a statement then you should say so but you can't say the word "Nobody" and then say that it is a generalized statement. Its not a generalized statement, its a false statement. In Particracy we are dealing with over 50 fictional nations, not just one real one.

I don't think the Nazi example is as extreme as you say it is. Its just one of the more recent and more popularized examples of revolutionary action by elected officials.

Alright: First a Disclaimer- I have absolutely nothing personally invested in this particular discussion. If it is your desire to score points based on knocking down the strawmen created by my flippant remarks, so be it- that is entirely your choice. But alright- let's dance.

Point 1) You didn't prove anything. The only thing you actually demonstrated is that I shouldn't use words like "Nobody" when I am throwing off comments because I don't have much invested in them. If you demand that degree of precision, let me rephrase my word to "few" as in "few people campaign, in a legitimate and sanctioned political contest, for the purpose of, once obtaining Office, abolition of the current political order under which they were elected. And MOST people run for office because they intend to uphold he political order, and merely occupy the seats in it." And finally, "Legislative change does not equal regime change. Ending Obamacare, for example, is not regime change. A Republican replacing a Democrat in 2016 does not equal regime change. Killing Saddam Hussein by itself does not equal regime change. Regime Change is ONLY accomplished when the old political regime is thrown entirely out and a completely new one is put in its place. Hitler would be a great example of this, but Lincoln is absolutely not."

Point 2) You don't need to offer me isolated examples to demonstrate your point, because for every Hitler you can offer me, I can offer you a Millard Filmore. But I stand by the statement that I made, even if I didn't initially make it eloquently enough for you, and will use your words to make it: You say

Almost everyone gets into politics because they want to change at least a few things.

Fine. I can agree with that. A "few" changes does not encompass throwing the Constitution out and establishing an absolute monarchy. A "few" changes does not include overthrowing the government and establishing a personalistic dictatorship. It doesn't even equal advocating constitutional amendment (what constitutional amendments has Obama advocated, or did he advocate when running for President?) A "few" changes does not equal declaration that we all speak Chinese now in the United States, and for that matter, we are altering the basic rules of our governing regime so that we appear more like the Saudi Government than the United States Government. A "few" changes also does not equal altering the rules of the Game, outside your RPed action in country. You didn't start playing Particracy to overthrow the rules of the Game. You didn't move to Mordusia to overthrow the rules of the game and substitute new ones. The changes you seem to envision and the ones your IG Party is able to accomplish appear to be two completely different categories of change.

The sort of change you are talking about with Hitler is no where near the change that you are referring to with Lincoln. Because the Constitution was exactly the same before Lincoln as with after it, with the exception of a few pen changes in the form of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Otherwise, all Seven Articles and the preceding 12 Amendments were still precisely as they were before he took office (minus the language on congressional apportionment, which was overwritten in the Amendments.) Senators and Congressmen were elected in exactly the same way. Presidents were elected in exactly the same way too. There was still freedom of speech, and freedom of petition, and there was still limited republican government in the United States. Alabama was still a state, as was Iowa. The national capital was still in Washington DC, and the elections were still regular. No part of the POLITICAL REGIME had been touched by Lincoln's opposition to slavery or Dred Scot. The only things that were altered were property rights (which are not mentioned in the constitution except with regard to just compensation), application of the Bill of Rights to the States in the form of due process of the law, and the expansion of the franchise to black men. Hardly a political revolution, unless you are looking at it only from the point of view of a member of the Southern slaveholding white supremacist gentry who saw any move by the federal government with regard to slavery as nothing but absolute tyranny.

I think this is the problem. Many Americans see statutory change as regime change. And it is because they don't know the difference between the two. But at any rate, changing a few things is NOTHING close to radical regime change on the order or Hitler, or even someone a little more moderate like Hugo Chavez. "Getting into politics" in most countries still means fighting over who sits at the top of the political regime, not appointing one's self Hereditary Monarch after one is elected.

Peace.

[Doc]

Now, if, on the other hand, you meant originally that people get into Mordusian politics with the specific aim of altering the Game Rules, well, I stand corrected, and will shut my mouth, because I don't know anything about Mordusian politics- for all I know, you could be right, and there is some special connection between Mordusian politics and the Rules of the Game which govern everyone else. But you and I both know that this is not what you were talking about. Cheers, and good luck to you in your efforts. But I think your and my part of this discussion which is now probably completely tangential, is therefore also probably over.

[errant sperm]

Response to Liu Che/Zhuli:

The fact that the rules enforce gradual change is part of the problem. In real life, some things change quickly and some things change slowly. The speed of change should be based on the RP involved. You are going in circles by continuing to ask me to join a nation that is already aligned with what I want. If I did that then there would be nothing to change. What fun is that?

My RP is based on interaction with other players. For example, my party left Valruzia for fear of persecution due to religious law changes that were out of our control. I didn't make those changes, other parties did. I love interacting the other players. That is the point of any multiplayer game.

As I have already mentioned, I have no desire to change the demographics in Mordusia. My party had mostly Valruzian names because we had fled Valruzia. I was slowly Mordusianizing my party. Too slow for the rules of the game unfortunately. The rules and the way they were enforced restricted my RP. Again, that is why I'm complaining.

I don't think there is any conspiracy by more established players but another person on this thread had mentioned that, that could be an issue and maybe he/she is right. I really don't know.

Response to Doc:

If you have nothing personally invested here then why are you posting. You wouldn't be posting here if you didn't have some kind of feelings about the issue.

1) If you are going to engage in the debate you should speak properly (or in this case type properly) and not state incorrect facts, if you want people to understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. As for the rest of this point, I mostly agree but regime change doesn't mean everything is thrown out. Just most of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regime+change

2) You now stand by your changed statement because your original statement was inaccurate. Again, Thanks for clarifying your opinion.

I said AT LEAST a few, NOT a few. As in, could be more than a few. As in, some people get into politics to make major changes. I'm not sure how this conversation relates to Obama's views on constitutional amendments. You lost me there Doc. The changes in the rules I want to see would allow me to slowly change my Valruzian names to Mordusian ones based on my RP. Also, opening up cultural protocols for easier Modification is important to me because I want to be free to properly RP and make reasonable/realistic changes in the future. Changes that make sense based on RP. Weather they are slow changes or fast ones. It should depend on the RP involved. This involves my in game party because what I am able to do now, and in the future, is based on how restrictive the rules are. Again, I am arguing for them to be less restrictive.

I don't consider the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments "pen changes." They were major "revolutionary" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolution changes to the law and culture of the United States. It was at the very least, socially revolutionary and considering the constitution was changed, I would argue that it was politically revolutionary as well. The political system of slavery was completely overthrown. I see the American Civil war as a major historical event that is right up there with the events in Germany during the time of Hitler. We could argue about what was more or less important historically but I think we can agree that they were both very significant historical times. In the South, from the time of succession, until the end of the war, it was a completely different regime. I would say that qualifies as a regime change considering that the CSA considered itself an Independent country and operated as such. Even after they lost and the Union was restored, things would never be the same. I argue that the Regime changed twice in the south. The south declared independence with Jefferson Davis as the leader of the new regime, then when the war ended, the regime changed again back to the Lincoln lead Union.

"Getting into politics" could mean a lot of things. In Hitler's case, it meant creating a Totalitarian Regime. It also could describe a person running for student council at school.

I started playing in Mordusia, for the 3rd time, before I realized how restrictive the current rules were written and how strictly they would be enforced.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Please tell me what cultural things change rapidly within a period of a decade or less? I mean in terms of overall culture, not game variables.

I am not going in circles, you are simply not understanding what I am saying. I have said find a nation AS CLOSE TO WHAT YOU WANT AS POSSIBLE not, find the nation that is perfect for you. I know you want to change things. Things can be changed easier in a nation that has already moved somewhat in the direction you want it to move.

And that religious RP would have been great if you had done it in a better way. Religious refugees of a minority religion go to Mordusia and form a party. They join with other minority groups in Mordusia to fight for certain rights or join other religious groups. This can explain away widespread popular support. All you had to do was tweak a few names. Instead, you were stubborn and decided to started this thread and began this discussion.

The fact of the matter is that you did things that didn't make sense and when you were told you couldn't have it your way, for the sake of keeping things logical, you got upset. RP that makes sense should be promoted and encouraged. RP that does not make sense should be corrected.

Wow...talk about tinfoil.

[Doc]

Response to Doc:

If you have nothing personally invested here then why are you posting. You wouldn't be posting here if you didn't have some kind of feelings about the issue.

1) If you are going to engage in the debate you should speak properly (or in this case type properly) and not state incorrect facts, if you want people to understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. As for the rest of this point, I mostly agree but regime change doesn't mean everything is thrown out. Just most of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regime+change

2) You now stand by your changed statement because your original statement was inaccurate. Again, Thanks for clarifying your opinion.

I said AT LEAST a few, NOT a few. As in, could be more than a few. As in, some people get into politics to make major changes. I'm not sure how this conversation relates to Obama's views on constitutional amendments. You lost me there Doc. The changes in the rules I want to see would allow me to slowly change my Valruzian names to Mordusian ones based on my RP. Also, opening up cultural protocols for easier Modification is important to me because I want to be free to properly RP and make reasonable/realistic changes in the future. Changes that make sense based on RP. Weather they are slow changes or fast ones. It should depend on the RP involved. This involves my in game party because what I am able to do now, and in the future, is based on how restrictive the rules are. Again, I am arguing for them to be less restrictive.

I don't consider the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments "pen changes." They were major "revolutionary" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolution changes to the law and culture of the United States. It was at the very least, socially revolutionary and considering the constitution was changed, I would argue that it was politically revolutionary as well. The political system of slavery was completely overthrown. I see the American Civil war as a major historical event that is right up there with the events in Germany during the time of Hitler. We could argue about what was more or less important historically but I think we can agree that they were both very significant historical times. In the South, from the time of succession, until the end of the war, it was a completely different regime. I would say that qualifies as a regime change considering that the CSA considered itself an Independent country and operated as such. Even after they lost and the Union was restored, things would never be the same. I argue that the Regime changed twice in the south. The south declared independence with Jefferson Davis as the leader of the new regime, then when the war ended, the regime changed again back to the Lincoln lead Union.

Alright- to answer each point in turn, since we are now fully off the topic of your issues with your officials' names. I didn't actually have anything personal invested in this discussion. I am engaged in it because first, you basically answered a question that I had an opinion on, and second, because I enjoy sparring. If I "lose" however that is measured, I won't feel bad. And it doesn't really cost me anything to spar, so I'm in.

1) You want to keep harping on this precision business. Fine. Let me inform you that the term "regime" is a specific term, which means, more or less, the rules of the system which determines how power and resources are distributed in any political system. You can have competitive elections without touching those rules- See, for example, the US. You can even have coup d'etats, putches, and golpes without changing the regime- those things merely replace the thugs at the top with different thugs- the rules of the system are not changed. You can cite all the online dictionary quotes to me, or you can take my word for it. Dictionary.com... that's pretty good. It defines regime change as essentially a change (they say transition) from one regime to another. In other words, a Regime Change is defined by them as a "change in regime"... If you want to keep pushing precision, at least, for crying out loud, pick a better online dictionary, which defines, specifically, what they mean by "transition" and what they mean by "regime", because it is the second of those two terms particularly that this discussion between you and I hinges.

2) "Could be more than a few?" Fine. be precise. Exactly how many do you mean, because "could me more than a few" could mean anywhere between 3 and 100 million, so long as it is not "All", "One", "a Couple", or "None." I introduced Obama as an example of someone who did NOT want to make significant changes to the SYSTEM. He may have proposed significant changes to the LAW, but that is different. The difference between statutory and regime change is the difference between making a law and passing a constitutional amendment. And I don't count Obamacare as "major change."

I suppose I am just not clear what you are talking about? Your post started by advocating significant alteration of the Game Rules. In other words, you were advocating for regime change. That is NOT the same as what most politicians often get into politics to do. Most politicians do not campaign on changing the rules of the system. Yeah, I originally said nobody. But you gave me a couple of examples of how that is absolutely and unequivocally false and how I was so totally wrong on that point, , because at least ONE person did (I didn't bother reading the post on the Roman Republic). So I said "fine" on that- I gave you that strawman. And now you want to kick that strawman some more...

3) As for "revolutionary" I suppose you have a point. I guess some people are also under the impression that a new flavor of toothpaste is revolutionary. Smoother edges on the body of a car are "revolutionary". But revolution is radical, fundamental and irreversible alteration in the political system. Or, it is the full movement of one heavenly body around another, as in, the earth makes one revolution around the sun in a year. Initially, it meant restoration of an older, better order to address some corruption that had crept in since the beginning. So applied to the Civil War Amendments, they did NOT fundamentally, radically, or irreversibly alter the political structure of the United States. I merely have to say Jim Crow to smack that claim down. The equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment wasn't even litigated until 40 years later, and only after 1925 did they apply the Bill of rights at the state and local level. The 13th Amendment still allows involuntary labor among prisoners, and was used primarily in the Trustee system in southern prisons to move blacks back into virtual slavery, by arresting them for "vagrancy"- and remnants of this system still exist across the country today. They 15th Amendment wasn't enforced until the Voting Act of 1965. You can say that "de jure" they were a political reform that was significant, but they didn't actually change a thing.

The South was an illegitimate political regime- Even Lincoln claimed that the Southern States were merely in rebellion, and the radicals who wanted to treat them as if they had left the union were prevented from doing so by Moderates who preferred military occupation of Southern States and then merely readmission to the Congress, rather than having to rewrite state constitutions and apply for readmission as if they actually HAD left the union. So who cares what the CSA thought- they lost and they were wrong. The argument that they had never left the union and were merely rebelling is the argument that carried the day in law.

But- by all means. let's keep debating this. I am sure it is good fun for all viewers. And it is also a nice little rhetorical exercise for me.

[errant sperm]

"Please tell me what cultural things change rapidly within a period of a decade or less? I mean in terms of overall culture, not game variables."
That's an easy one. The Holocaust Greatly reduced the Jewish population in Europe in less than a decade. In Germany, the population of Jews went from 522,000 down to 214,000 between 1933 and 1937. That's an over 50% drop. by 1943 less than 20,000 Jews were left in Germany. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005469 I can find many more examples if you need them.

I understand you think I should change nations. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE NATIONS! I DON'T WANT TO BE RESTRICTED TO SMALL CHANGES! What part of that don't you understand?

So I should do my role play the way other people want me to do it. If I do that then it's not my role play. So what if my names were Polish. Like I told Aquinas, I was going to change them anyway. The restrictions are out of control. I can't blink without getting a message from Moderation. If it doesn't line up with exactly what Moderation thinks is realistic then I get told. I am sick of it. I finally decided to put my foot down out of frustration. If you consider that stubbornness then that's your opinion and I'm fine with that. It is what it is. Call it what you want.

My role play makes sense to me. You have a different opinion. Aquinas has a different opinion. There is a huge difference between an Opinion and a Fact. I have tried to explain why it make sense to me but you don't accept it. Well I don't accept these rules and/or the way they are enforced and if nothing changes then I'm not playing.