| Some things I feel like should be said but... |
I'm saying I think the biggest goal of the coup was to drive me out of the region, and that remains a considerable motivational factor that few want to admit. I think this is a zero-sum game, and so long as one side doesn't feel like the winner, we will continue having fight after fight over any issue that we can add to our score card.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can understand that view. How would you seek to address that if you were on the side that felt like it wasn't the 'winner'?
If I was on the losing side, I would keep fighting until I felt like giving up.
People keep wanting some kind of peaceful solution that ends with everybody getting what they want, or at least nobody feeling like they clearly lost. I think that's a nice thought, but it's impossible because this isn't an issue where there is a middle ground. That's what makes it zero sum. If TSP's openness is going to survive, it needs to have a stronger spine. We need to allow tribes to fight each other in bloody battles when it comes to that. What we have right now is an incredibly paternalistic culture that chastises division and makes it so those who don't fall into the fold and pretend like there's agreement get punished. All the while, there's massive pent up tension that explodes every now and then. That's when you get Belschaft wanting to manipulate elections and ban me and Unibot. That's when you get us exiling him from the region. That's when you get a coup, and people who lost the last round of explosion support it because they want to beat the people they lost to. And you know what? That's NS Gameplay. That's the game! Literally! Why am I so hated and reviled among a group of players? Because I'm a defender who ended the TNI alliance and took TSP out of the Independent-imperialist sphere. That's something worthy of enmity because it means those who supported the alliance and those who earned their career pushing Independence *lost*. There is nothing wrong with that. That's the whole lifeblood of NS Gameplay, a part of the game TSP is inherently tied to. The problem is with those who think tribalism is bad and division is unhealthy. That has created a community that can't survive deep and intractable disagreements. The solution is to start naming the winners and losers. Make elections mean something by actually allowing people to run ideological or partisan campaigns. Make our votes more majoritarian. Ensure a basic safety net so that there isn't a coup, and severely punish those who break the no-coup rule. What TSP needs is plain old politics. But that's anathema, so we'll continue this cycle of drama for the foreseeable future. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you for the considered reply. I'm not sure how much of it I agree with it - probably because it reminds me of the dying days of the Kemetic Republic of Osiris - but it definitely has given me something to think about.
I'll just leave this link here, mostly because I think it complements the above post.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
(03-07-2016, 07:07 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: If I was on the losing side, I would keep fighting until I felt like giving up. And, Glen -- this is what's wrong. After reading your thread, I honestly want to know if I've been talking to a wall for years? This isn't about disagreement, per se, it's about imposing the rest of NS onto TSP. The goal is to be a chill place where people agree and fight these battles elsewhere. Literally, I couldn't give a flying-eff-less about the defender-invader-whatever. And yet, everyone keeps coming back to the issue. Have your fights elsewhere -- just leave them at the door to the region. As I've long said, this isn't the game. The game is sitting on the RMB and answering issues. The offsite forum is an addition and a way to make the government run better since we don't have all the tools in game. The fact that we have to be part of this ideological fight is silly and wrongheaded. We haven't wanted to and we still don't want to. I'd appreciate if everyone stopped forcing this on the region every chance they get.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I think his main point is we need to find a healthy way of acknowledging differences where differences do exist, because we won't be getting along all the time.
We always require consensus. I know nothing in the law says that, but as a matter of culture, we tend of ostrcise or ridicule people who refuse to follow the consensus on highly contentious topics. It's often very subtle, but it happens, and it's a very serious issue, which leads to a collective culture where we either rationalise acts outside the legal framework or react to dissenting opinions as if they were threats to the region. "It's alright to be more lenient with the coupers, because the system truly is dysfunctional and they intended well." I can guarantee you that this argument is holding because many of the coupers are still well liked and those few who were ejected are controversial enough. I say this not to cause further division, but to illustrate the point that we have a problem with (a) facing ugly truths and (b) respecting our institutionality. You may say that right now it's more important to focus on reconciliation and unity, which means being more lenient with those who couped. But that inevitably involves ignoring the pleas of those who were personally affected by the coup, and that is directly tied to the culture of extreme consensus. You instantly make them feel as if their plight and concerns are less important than being sympathetic towards their aggressors. I don't mean you personally are guilty of this, I mean that we are a culture create that environment, and that has happened in many past discussions. Those who formerly argued against independence or supported defenderism were treated less favourably than those who supported independence. Those who opposed bicameralism were treated less favourably than those who supported giving greater powers to the gameside community. Those who oppose being immediately lenient towards the coupers are treated with snark by some or not so seriously by others. I don't have a solution to this, but I do think it's important for us to acknowledge that this happens and is a recurring problem. I am guilty of this. You are guilty of this. Glen is guilty of this. Belschaft is guilty of this. Wolf is builty of this. We all are. I say this not to shame anyone, but rather to clearly state what I think is the main problem with our political culture. We have to stop treating our opponents as if they were threats to the region or its values. There are no inherent values to the South Pacific. It is what we make it, and that means coming to terms with the fact that the people who merely argue against us are not the devil, nor are they some existencial threat that must be dealth with harshly. We can't dismiss their opinions, nor treat them with snark. You (general you) want to make of the South Pacific the laid back region it once was? Then be laid back, but be consistent about it. That means being calm when arguing with your opponents, instead of yelling at them or being unnecessarily snarky. That means working within the framework we all agreed, instead of trying to dissolve it. That means reaching to your opponent and getting to know the person behind their Assembly persona. Because we are all actual people! We have goals, aspirations, feelings. We smile when something goes our way, we hurt when someone does us wrong. I suppose the key to being a bit more harmonious, no matter how difficult it will be, or how idealistic you might call it, is remembering that we are arguing with actual people, who are here because they want to have fun, and treating them as such. If you are in a situation where someone might not be having fun, then it's probably time to step back and talk with each other as people, to try and see how you both can improve the situation. This might be idealistic, naive, easy to say but harder to do. Sure. But do you prefer the alternative? And wow. My argument changed a lot as my post progressed. It went from a half-attack to a call for acknowledging each other as people. I'd go back and change my whole post, to make it flow better, but I'll let it like that. I kinda like the unplanned progression it has. To be honest, I'm not even sure if I'm responding to Tsu's post anymore, as much as just making a general comment on why the government is so dysfunctional. Or, in a way, my proposed solution is as messy as the problem to which is answers. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Kris — I don't think you're wrong. Harmony should be the goal. In fact, I'd argue that compromise and harmony go hand in hand.
We don't need everyone to agree. But we do need everyone to feel heard and as many opinions incorporated as possible. We need people to be willing to move and not take position x, and argue everything else down. There's a difference between radical compromise -- where everyone needs to agree -- and somewhat compromise where we have something everyone can live with. We need the later so we can pull people together without a constant struggle where one party is constantly trying to undo the other.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I mean...it's not that somewhat compromise is wrong , but the way do it here is such that by the time we agree to consider compromise, one side is already committed to victory and the other feels very much relegated. So whatever compromise does result is used to claim victory or express dissatisfaction. Often this isn't made explicit, but it does happen in one way or another.
Another problem arises when one side (or both) are engaged in the kind of argument where they don't believe they should have to live with compromise. For example, how do you successfully compromise with someone who strongly believes that coups are a black or white situation, regardless of their context? Obviously that's the very thing we're trying to do now, but it also illustrates the inherent difficulty of the situation, and the potential for resentment. Again, I don't really have a solution to this, but I feel it's useful to put this into writing. EDIT: Not directly related to this post, but very much related to my above post, is the something I want to repeat, and that is that being civil with each other doesn't mean sugarcoating the truth, or using other arguments to hide our true motivations. If we simply don't think someone is fit for government office, we should just say it. If we strongly oppose someone because we simply don't like their political stances, we need to say it. This won't solve the real problem, but at the very least we would have the minimum of courtesy to be honest with each other. We all know certain people don't like each other (I'm not innocent of this either), so we might as well just said it, instead of keeping it contained and releasing that dislike in the form of snark or heated arguing. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I have tried to be unbiased against everyone in this, mostly because during the middle of the coup I left the region. I agree with Jacks that we should not choose to be in certain political groups because that just causes more issues; however, at the same time its worse that the people are still fighting, rather than trying to rebuild our friends in the TSP. Everyone is ganging up once again as it was. I know, we can't please everyone, and I know that what I say will probably get a lot of crap for those who don't agree with me, but rather than arguing, why not for once we attempt to get along?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |