Creation of a new faction

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Danton Sideways
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:45 pm
Contact:

Creation of a new faction

Post by Danton Sideways »

Dear all,

My recent strongly-worded comments on various threads on this forum express my own opinions only, rathen than those of CSDF.

I am worried that what I have said may bother certain members of CSDF. It would therefore seem appropriate for me to make a public announcement of my intention to form a new political faction within CDS.

I still fully support CSDF and all of its members, and remain on the best of terms with all of them. However, I need to be free to express exactly what I think, without having to worry about obtaining the approval of that group, or weighing the consequences for their public image.

I will therefore henceforth be working on forming a new political faction within CDS, and hope to gain enough members to participate in the next general election. Once a group has been formed, we will internally debate our political line, before posting news about it to the forum.

Danton

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Dnate Mars »

I wish you the best of luck!

User avatar
Danton Sideways
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Danton Sideways »

Thanks. I'll need it!

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Luck, and about 7 or 8 more members, per recent legislation!

User avatar
Robert Walpole
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:11 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Robert Walpole »

Justice,

The prospect of having as many factions as RA seats, each having their own ONE RA member, rather defeats the entire faction-based CDS system doesn't it? We would simply revert then to a politics of personalities and an alliance game, seems to me.

For what it's worth, having a higher entrance threshold for new parties actually preserves a faction- and ideas-based system for at least a while longer in CDS, IMHO...

Regards,

Rob

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
'I'm watching the watchers, Jerry!' (Kramer)
User avatar
symokurka
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:14 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by symokurka »

I substantially agree with Robert. We do not need more factions, we need clearer factions' programmes, more transparency on decision process, more devotion to community interests, more EARS to citizens' needs. Yes it sounds to me too RA is becoming a personal roleplay arena.

Salzie Sachertorte
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:00 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Salzie Sachertorte »

symokurka wrote:

I substantially agree with Robert. We do not need more factions, we need clearer factions' programmes, more transparency on decision process, more devotion to community interests, more EARS to citizens' needs. Yes it sounds to me too RA is becoming a personal roleplay arena.

Hear! Hear!

It is my personal opinion that most, but not all, of the current RA members serve a Constituency of One.

bjerkeleerie
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by bjerkeleerie »

I am a new arrival here and as such may have some fresh perspective. Originally I came to CDS looking for a place to locate the "Green Islands" Project. no property was available at that time. I have watched the CDS develop for over a year. When Delia Lake informed me of the creation of Alpine Meadow, I thought it a great chance to experience directly something I liked as an outside observer, because I wanted to participate in helping to build an Island with others, and I was taken by the Alpine Meadow theme.

Additional factions are not a problem, behaving in a civil manner and with a clearly declared set of goals and community minded purposes seems to be.

In a community of 80 people, with less than half of citizens as members of factions, the process does not seem to be as representative as it could be. If a new group is created and engages the participation of previously non or under represented groups, is that not a good thing in a democracy?

Quite honestly this organization is smaller than many Rotary International Clubs and has a smaller budget than most of them. They are all direct democracies. They have civil discourse and accomplish common goals. Sometimes CDS makes me think of the terrible monopoly games we played as children, usually ending up with the board tipped over by an angry participant. I am not here to play monopoly. I am here to be a part of an on-line community.

On my view, CDS could be about providing opportunities for its virtual citizenry to find self expression thru creative activities in the arts, crafts, sciences, humanities, and recreation. Expansion of the CDS makes sense if that expansion is a way of expressing creativity for CDS citizens. i suspect that CDS has experienced it's best moments during the actual development phase of each additional island. People working together on a shared vision build lasting bonds. New factions may be a part of sustaining such positive flow. Arguing and debating produces arguing and debating. (should we form a debate club? seriously!! it might be a productive channel for many of our citizens)

Growth for the sake of growth is cancer, growth for the expression of creative values is art. Even private sim development strike me as a way for some CDS members to find a chance for self expression if done in a constructive context. I think many of us are here to avoid the capricious tyranny of private island owners and the anarchy of the mainland. Better to be ruled by equals and have a right of redress by a court of peers, than to serve under even a well meaning, but dictatorial sim lord, or try to be creative in the cacophony of the mainland

User avatar
Robert Walpole
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:11 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Robert Walpole »

If a new group is created and engages the participation of previously non or under represented groups, is that not a good thing in a democracy?

Bjerkel,

I entirely agree with you that it would indeed be worthwhile to do so. There are, however, two other questions to be answered:

1. To what ends are such individuals or groups engaged? and

2. What will the ultimate consequence of such new parties be on the overall dynamics of the current political system?

As to the first question, both you and Danton were CSDF members who for one reason or another decided to give up your membership in that faction and found your own. Both of you argue in favor of greater civility, community building, participation, and careful expansion suited to the community's needs, using our own resources first before opening up the sim development process to non-CDS entrepreneurs.

This s fundamentally the position AND practice of the DPU. I truly do not see a substantive difference between your procedural AND substantive goals and those of the DPU. It is exactly because I believe in these principles and values that I decided, after some reflection time, to join the DPU, who has the significant advantages of having a good number of experienced citizens as members (Claude -3 time RA LRA and member of the SC, Pelanor - current SC member, Flyingroc - former RA member, Dnate - former Chancellor, and Sonja - current RA member) and having led for 3 terms the RA during some of its most difficult times (the Ulrika Trial, the Judiciary Debate) as well as its greatest successes (the development of Colonia Nova).

so, while I understand why you may be reluctant, after leaving the CSDF, to join either Beathan's SP faction of ThePrincess' NuCARE faction, I truly do not see any substantive policy difference between what both of you propose separately and the DPU platform. The only answer I can come up with is that you each wish yo have your own faction. And this brings us to the second question.

The second question focuses on the effects on our community's politics on going from 4 to 6 parties.

Let us assume that 2 new factions are indeed created, each with approximately 10 members each - and that these members would all rank their new faction first. The inevitable result, in a system such as ours, would be twofold:

1. Given our current voting system, each faction is liable to elect one RA Member, with one party bound to have 2 such members. Since the differences in the platforms of the DPU and the newly formed factions will be virtually non-existent, voting will take place not as a result of a contest of ideas, but as consequence of friendships, group memberships, and personality issues. This individualisation and clientelisation of the CDS political system is, it seems to me, quite the opposite of the debate of principles and ideas the CDS was attempting to base its political system on.

2. Once elected, no party would have a clear popular mandate to govern - not even the party having secured two seats out of seven and the LRA position. We would be back where we started this term, with coalitions, reversals, frustrations, and dramas. Only now, instead of having three parties with 2 RA members each and 1 with one Member, we would end up with 5 parties with 1 member each and one with two Members. Far from improving the situation, the creation of 2 new factions would only lead to a further fragmentation of our community and political discourse. The RA will become eve more, as Saltzie rightly points out, an institution whose members serve "Communities of One".

So what do i proposed instead? Well, you will all laugh and say I'm biased but... Join the DPU! What do you have to lose? Become members, take place in our meetings, discussions, policy decisions. Contribute your ideas and points of view and enrich our perspectives with yours. You may well find the DPU is exactly the kind of party you were looking for in the first place. What is the worst that can happen? you won't like it. You can then resign your DPU membership and resume your efforts to set up a new party.

Assume, however, that you like the DPU and help attract more inactive citizens to the CDS political process. We will have a truly revitalised party, combining older and newer citizens, experience and enthusiasm, due care and dynamism, which would stand a realistic chance to gain three or even four seats at the next election and hence, win a truly wide mandate to govern our community in accordance with the values and principles we all espouse.

The only reason you wouldn't wish to join the DPU is, well... because each of you wish to set up your own factions.

That is, of course, your right.

But is it in the best long-term interest of our community?

Just something to think about before you expend a lot of time, energy and effort in setting up two new factions...

PS. And you could join us too, Symo, and help us implement your own suggestions and ideas! As I said, what do you have to lose by trying us out for a month or two? :P

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
'I'm watching the watchers, Jerry!' (Kramer)
bjerkeleerie
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by bjerkeleerie »

Mr Walpole
i am intrigued by your belief in your ability to speak to other's motives, especially when we have shared no conversations. for your information, I have founded nothing...a few friends, concerned about the RA's inability to maintain civil discourse decided to form a group more akin to the US League of Women Voters, than the current factions. WE Have called it a faction because we do wish to inform the political process of CDS, I cannot speak for our members, but i suspect that we have no desire to field a slate of candidates. Our goal is to encourage "community"

The freedom to create within the context of a well defined pallet and a community of friends is of concern. The mechanisms of governance are currently mired in incivility and and game playing. If the "Factions" wish to play at politics, thats fine. it is a legitimate sport, but one that OVER HALF of CDS's "citizens" of are not interested in enough to join any existing faction. No faction has offered a vision that is compellingly articulated, nor have they convinced the majority of non-voting non-participating citizens that there is currently any reason to.

when a faction shows that it can build community and be polite, "Community" will be supportive

User avatar
Robert Walpole
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:11 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Robert Walpole »

Bjerkel,

You will forgive me for deducing, from the title of this thread and your comments above, as well as from your short visit to the last DPU meeting where you mentioned the formation of "Community" and your attempt to recruit more members, that this would indeed be a "faction" in the CDS sense of the word -ie a political group aiming to present candidates for the Representative Assembly. If I misunderstood -my apologies; but this in no way changes the substantive part of my arguments.

I do, however, disagree with you when you say that no party has presented a compelling and articulate vision of our future as a community in a constructive and polite way. The DPU not only did this during the last elections, but for three mandates guided the CDS in exactly such a manner through some of its most difficult times, to some of its highest achievements. However, I do agree with you that it is indeed worrisome to see that half our citizens are not members of any faction and welcome your attempts to attract more or them in our political arena.

I look forward to see how your group shall evolve and look forward to see it work closely together with the DPU in pursuit of shared goals.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
'I'm watching the watchers, Jerry!' (Kramer)
bjerkeleerie
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by bjerkeleerie »

Robert,
your not deducing anything, you haven't stated a set of premises, nor are you conclusions valid or sound in the classical sense. You are applying induction at best, and even then there is no well constructed argument. At least get the logic right if your going to use the language. But i prefer not to use Aristotle, greek logic doesn't even map one to one on to Modern English. Lets use some 21st century approaches to discourse.

No attempt at recruiting was made when I stumbled into your midnight meeting and i left that same meeting promtly because I felt I had wandered into an event in which I was not welcome. it struck me as a late night meeting between the DPU and NuCares. hopefully that is a miss-impression that DPU would be entering into back room negotiations with another faction.

You assume there to be an argument. when I am just stating perspectives and trying to articulate a vision. Do you preceive all things as a debate? I think the fact that you seem to perceive the world in terms of arguments, winning and loosing, point counter point as an underlying difference in world views. It may be that we have no common ground of a shared perspective.

User avatar
Robert Walpole
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:11 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Robert Walpole »

Bjerkel,

i find your tone to be unnecessarily negative, aggressive, even condescending.

Let's leave it at that.

Best regards.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
'I'm watching the watchers, Jerry!' (Kramer)
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Robert Walpole wrote:

Bjerkel,

i find your tone to be unnecessarily negative, aggressive, even condescending.

Let's leave it at that.

Best regards.

All I'm going to say is "Wouldn't anyone else like to take the 'no ad hominem attacks' pledge with Sonja and me?" Your perception of Bjerkel's "tone" may not be positive, but she does make some valid points that you might like to address rather than shutting off the discussion...

Cindy

User avatar
Sonja Strom
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Creation of a new faction

Post by Sonja Strom »

bjerkeleerie wrote:

No attempt at recruiting was made when I stumbled into your midnight meeting and i left that same meeting promtly because I felt I had wandered into an event in which I was not welcome. it struck me as a late night meeting between the DPU and NuCares. hopefully that is a miss-impression that DPU would be entering into back room negotiations with another faction.

The meeting Bjerkel is talking about was in fact held last Friday from 10pm - midnight SLT. It was attended by four DPU members and two NuCARE members. It was a regular meeting of the DPU, and was open to anyone in the community who wanted to attend. One reference to this is a post made by Cindy here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... DPU#p10712

The time of this meeting had been arrived at the previous week, as the best one for everyone who wanted to participate using a scheduler to be found here: http://www.doodle.ch/tymzgxmt5twipdhe

After that we decided to have another meeting the following week (last week), described here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1748

Not finding another time that was much better, we decided to hold the second meeting at the same time and place as the first one. I had thought this was posted in the Forum, but am embarassed to admit that now I am not seeing it was. I apologise to anyone who feels left out by our not having posted this information in the Forum, and will do my best to ensure that in future the meeting times and places of DPU meetings are posted in the Forum beforehand.

----

Bjerkel, I also apologise to you that you felt unwelcome in our meeting. Personally I was glad to see you come in, and it was my intention to be welcoming to you. Yet, maybe I did not express that strongly enough.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”