That sucks for them, but honestly, the whole point of having an offsite government is so that people can play politics. We don't need elections for roleplay. We don't need them for spam games or the type of things we call "culture." We don't even need a government to pick the Delegate. We have one because some like the political aspects of the game, or some want 'democracy' to be the way decisions are made. In both cases, arguing and fighting is inherent. It's not "toxic"-- that's just a word being thrown around by those who don't like political play. The arguments we've been having are serious and go to the core of major disagreements. Toxicity is when arguments devolve into personal mudslinging and insults. So I think we should be more conscious of when we use that word.

For those who don't like politics, there's plenty other things to do. Maybe being active in the Assembly or in elections isn't the right place for you. There's nothing wrong with that. But unfortunately, that's a controversial viewpoint, because a lot in TSP seem to think we need to make our politics as bland as possible, because citizenship is the metric used to judge how healthy we are.

Reply

You are right that arguing isn't inherently toxic, but our recent arguments are. I think it's perfectly logical that many people would rather avoid that altogether and even feel surprised that anyone would enjoy being involved in such an environment.

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

Reply

I suppose it depends on the kind of arguments and the particular reason why you joined the game. NationStates is a political game, but there are many different ways of playing it. Some like the fierce arguments you get in regional governments. Some prefer to debate about real life politics. Some prefer to manage their nations. Some prefer to roleplay and create entire worlds. You have arguments in all those aspects, but the tone in each is different, and government arguments are by far much more toxic to many.

To use myself as an example. I really enjoy politics, and for a very long time I enjoyed getting involved in regional politics, as opposed to roleplaying. But recently I've found it more difficult to separate the real person from the regional politician, and that means I'm the toxicity in certain arguments affects me much more nowadays. I still get involved when I feel strongly about an issue, but regional politics is no longer the main reason for my continued involvement in the region. I know this is a political game, but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing the kind of arguments we sometimes see in the Assembly.

Basically, people know this is a political game, but they don't necessarily come with the same kind of politics in mind, and many find it discouraging to see people debating so fiercely. They can choose to ignore that aspect, but regional politics being so omnipresent, they sometimes can't avoid feeling dragged into it, and for those not hardened by constant political involvement, it can be nasty.

This. A millions times this. We have a lot of different ways to play and a broad community.

That sucks for them, but honestly, the whole point of having an offsite government is so that people can play politics. We don't need elections for roleplay. We don't need them for spam games or the type of things we call "culture." We don't even need a government to pick the Delegate. We have one because some like the political aspects of the game, or some want 'democracy' to be the way decisions are made. In both cases, arguing and fighting is inherent. It's not "toxic"-- that's just a word being thrown around by those who don't like political play. The arguments we've been having are serious and go to the core of major disagreements. Toxicity is when arguments devolve into personal mudslinging and insults. So I think we should be more conscious of when we use that word.

For those who don't like politics, there's plenty other things to do. Maybe being active in the Assembly or in elections isn't the right place for you. There's nothing wrong with that. But unfortunately, that's a controversial viewpoint, because a lot in TSP seem to think we need to make our politics as bland as possible, because citizenship is the metric used to judge how healthy we are.

But that's not the only reason we have an offsite forum. This "community" doesn't get built without the in-game aspects and new nations that get involved. Kris wouldn't have people to RP with if someone took over the delegacy and moved the official forums.

We can have both, but the problem is that we're increasing unable to distance the personal and political aspects. Henn's example that he and Bel argue over some things, but can connect over others is a good example. Likewise, so it the idea that you crossed boundaries to work with Hile and agree with Bel.

This doesn't have to be toxic, if we understand that people are separate from the ideas they are arguing. I — like Kris — have been guilty of getting too personally involved. But arguments don't have to be personal to not be bland.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Separating lives that don't connect is something every NSer should be good at. Things would be numerous times better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Reply

Yes, it doesn't have to be "toxic." But if you define the call for another vote to recall Sam as "toxic," for example, then the word has no meaning. I don't really think anything toxic has happened since the coup ended.

I don't want Sam out of the CSS because I dislike him as a person. I have no real opinion on him as a person. I get along fine with Belschaft when we're not engaged in politics. But when we're in the Assembly and debating about who should be in government, what policies we should have, how to address the post-coup reconstruction... I'm not going to trust Belschaft, because when it comes to these things we tend to have very different interests, and that in the past has included driving each other from the region. I'm not going to acquiesce to Sam being on the CSS, because I think it's a dumb move that does nothing but set a terrible precedent and delegitimizes an already fragile CSS that's already neared irrelevancy. If those fights include harsh words, that doesn't mean they're toxic.

It's one thing to say people are separate from their ideas. It's another thing to say it's wrong to consider the interests somebody has in arguing their ideas, and whether their trustworthiness means you can believe them when negotiating a compromise. There's purposeful ignorance just to avoid arguments, and then there's politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I think people have different perceptions of what toxicity entails, and many will tell you that the Assembly has been unbelievably toxic since the coup ended. Truth is many dislike the fierce tone of government debates and would vastly prefer withdrawing from it altogether rather than continuing to promote their views. I know I do.

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

Reply

We all have different opinions, we all know that for a fact. But arguing isn't gonna solve anything. There is a way to be peaceful in our differing opinions. Rather than attack someone right out for having a different view, why not respond by saying you dont feel the same way and stating you opinion, without being a jack***. I am not trying to be a hippie/peacemongeror but Fighting isn't the best way to get politics done and to get our region back on track.

(This post was last modified: 03-14-2016, 10:44 PM by Muncipio de Neiva. Edit Reason: Left out a part. )

Reply

I'll be honest, I haven't been paying attention to anything that's been being argued about. I just come on, tend to my Issues, check some rankings, and I'm away. I haven't taken the time to look around at what else might be going on around here.

Reply

We all have different opinions, we all know that for a fact. But arguing isn't gonna solve anything. There is a way to be peaceful in our differing opinions. Rather than attack someone right out for having a different view, why not respond by saying you dont feel the same way and stating you opinion, without being a jack***. I am not trying to be a hippie/peacemongeror but Fighting isn't the best way to get politics done and to get our region back on track.

When I said I haven't really seen much toxicity, it's because... this is how how fierce debates tend to actually happen. When you look back at, say, the debate on overturning Belschaft's security threat declaration and allowing him to be a citizen again, it's not like the debate devolved into petty personal attacks. Both sides made cogent points. But the "right" view was that it was absurd to not overturn the declaration, and if you opposed it, you were just being obstinate and doing it for petty personal reasons. Thus, no matter how 'professional' or 'peaceful' the opposing side was, we were painted with a broad brush as being ridiculous, opposing "reconciliation," toxic, etc.

The same thing happened with the Sam recall debate. Those of us who supported his recall stated our opinions clearly, we didn't resort to name-calling or insults. We just said we couldn't trust him, because he directly participated in the coup. It would be dysfunctional to keep him on. The same process of declaring an entire opposing opinion as toxic and unreasonable happened there.

TSP's politics has a real problem with allowing opposing viewpoints. That's why there's always a search for the "moderate" position or the consensus. There's a decent chunk of players who rally behind whatever position isn't X or Y, but that doesn't always mean the triangulated proposal is good or actually solves any underlying issue. It's just a position that grabs the rug from under the arguing sides. My position has always been that arguments are good and they should just be played out. The point of democracy is to allow a fair process for one side to win and one side to lose, with the possibility of change in the future.

Reply

We all have different opinions, we all know that for a fact. But arguing isn't gonna solve anything. There is a way to be peaceful in our differing opinions. Rather than attack someone right out for having a different view, why not respond by saying you dont feel the same way and stating you opinion, without being a jack***. I am not trying to be a hippie/peacemongeror but Fighting isn't the best way to get politics done and to get our region back on track.

When I said I haven't really seen much toxicity, it's because... this is how how fierce debates tend to actually happen. When you look back at, say, the debate on overturning Belschaft's security threat declaration and allowing him to be a citizen again, it's not like the debate devolved into petty personal attacks. Both sides made cogent points. But the "right" view was that it was absurd to not overturn the declaration, and if you opposed it, you were just being obstinate and doing it for petty personal reasons. Thus, no matter how 'professional' or 'peaceful' the opposing side was, we were painted with a broad brush as being ridiculous, opposing "reconciliation," toxic, etc.

The same thing happened with the Sam recall debate. Those of us who supported his recall stated our opinions clearly, we didn't resort to name-calling or insults. We just said we couldn't trust him, because he directly participated in the coup. It would be dysfunctional to keep him on. The same process of declaring an entire opposing opinion as toxic and unreasonable happened there.

TSP's politics has a real problem with allowing opposing viewpoints. That's why there's always a search for the "moderate" position or the consensus. There's a decent chunk of players who rally behind whatever position isn't X or Y, but that doesn't always mean the triangulated proposal is good or actually solves any underlying issue. It's just a position that grabs the rug from under the arguing sides. My position has always been that arguments are good and they should just be played out. The point of democracy is to allow a fair process for one side to win and one side to lose, with the possibility of change in the future.

Did I ever say i was referring directly to you? No I didnt. I was referring to all the posts that i have seen in here and the ensuing arguments.

Reply