New Register Thread

[Vote UKIP!]

MasterSanders
Georgia
Whig-Communitarian

[Simfan34]

MasterSanders
Georgia
Whig-Communitarian

Yes!

[Vote UKIP!]

MasterSanders
Georgia
Whig-Communitarian

Yes!

What can I say? I agree with 90% of its proposed platform, and I love the name.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Snowstalker
Pennsylvania
Labor Party

[nclib]

nclib
Liberal Party
same

[Vote UKIP!]

MasterSanders
Georgia
Whig-Communitarian
Pigs-in-Boots Caucus
Right to Life Caucus

[Cincinnatus]

MasterSanders
Georgia
Whig-Communitarian
Pigs-in-Boots Caucus
Right to Life Caucus

You can only be a member of one caucus at a time.

[Vote UKIP!]

Fine. I'll be with Pig-in-Boots.

[Marokai Backbeat]

nclib
Liberal Party
same

This is generally why I don't like the Liberal Party. They know that the term is taken two completely different ways to two completely different types of people, and they use that dual definition to recruit anyone from nearly -6 to +3 econ. How does someone with that score decide to join a social liberal/econ centrist group? Ugh, whatever.

[Napoleon]

Napoleon
Liberal Party
Connecticut

This is "generally" why you don't like the Liberal Party. Now get back to your unit and don't leave the ward again without permission.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have a rather inflated sense of self importance.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

nclib
Liberal Party
same

This is generally why I don't like the Liberal Party. They know that the term is taken two completely different ways to two completely different types of people, and they use that dual definition to recruit anyone from nearly -6 to +3 econ. How does someone with that score decide to join a social liberal/econ centrist group? Ugh, whatever.

..what the hell has gotten in to you? no offence, but seriously wtf?

[Napoleon]

Heaven forbid an ACLU supporter join a socially liberal party!

[Marokai Backbeat]

nclib
Liberal Party
same

This is generally why I don't like the Liberal Party. They know that the term is taken two completely different ways to two completely different types of people, and they use that dual definition to recruit anyone from nearly -6 to +3 econ. How does someone with that score decide to join a social liberal/econ centrist group? Ugh, whatever.

..what the hell has gotten in to you? no offence, but seriously wtf?

I find something downright deceptive about your party's name, frankly.

[Napoleon]

There's a band of extreme right wingers out there calling themselves "Communitarian" and we are the ones with the deceptive name? Nice try, Marokai. It'd be nice to see you stop lying through your teeth like this.

Another funny anecdote: the Communitarian Party was equal to the Liberal Party in size when the Liberal Party was "ruining dissolution" by having 13 members. We were "too big" but they weren't.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There's a band of extreme right wingers out there calling themselves "Communitarian" and we are the ones with the deceptive name? Nice try, Marokai. It'd be nice to see you stop lying through your teeth like this.

Another funny anecdote: the Communitarian Party was equal to the Liberal Party in size when the Liberal Party was "ruining dissolution" by having 13 members. We were "too big" but they weren't.

As you'll see in a few moments, I'm not happy about that either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've nothing against the "liberal party" denomination (in fact, I think it's a good name for this kind of party). I just hope that this party's goal is to gather socially progressive economic centrists (which, precisely, could be called liberals) and not become another big tent left-wing party like the one we just dissolved. In other words, please leave us the social-democrats/socialist/econ progressives.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Heaven forbid an ACLU supporter join a socially liberal party!

You might be a Minnesotan if you think Jell-O is a food group.

You might be a Minnesotan if you are a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA. 

Anyway, I decided I will join the Liberal Party...  Though I hope I can have strong ties and a good working relationship with the Labor Party, especially on economic initiatives.

I will say this right now:  If a Labor candidate is running on a platform I agree with and the Liberal candidate is too economically right wing, I will have no problem preferencing the Labor candidate ahead of the Liberal candidate.

The change in Atlasia is not about just dissolving parties and hoping things work out.  It's about a change in attitudes that is given a boost by having a fresh start.

I am loyal to my friends in this game, and I feel more at home in the Liberal Party.  But this new start has taken away a lot of the bad blood between the various factions and I truly feel, for the first time, that we can work together to see our overlapping goals achieved.  I know that sounds corny, but I'm ready for the change.  Are you?

Snowguy716
Liberal Party
Vermont

[Marokai Backbeat]

Again, this is what I'm saying. If the Liberal Party is not going to be ideologically consistent in any way with it's original intention, this solves absolutely nothing. The point of dissolution was for people to form their own ideological groups because the big parties had become too bloated and no longer resembled anything consistent. This was also the point of caucuses, to force big parties to faction up their members into ideological groups to encourage that sort of thinking.

If people that legitimately would join a Labor Party aren't joining the Labor Party, or people that would ordinarily join a Conservative Party or a Libertarian Party aren't joining a Conservative Party or a Libertarian Party, we will end up right back in this same position in a year from now, and everyone deserves every bit of boredom they get from assisting this game in repeating it's past errors.

[afleitch]

Again, this is what I'm saying. If the Liberal Party is not going to be ideologically consistent in any way with it's original intention, this solves absolutely nothing. The point of dissolution was for people to form their own ideological groups because the big parties had become too bloated and no longer resembled anything consistent. This was also the point of caucuses, to force big parties to faction up their members into ideological groups to encourage that sort of thinking.

If people that legitimately would join a Labor Party aren't joining the Labor Party, or people that would ordinarily join a Conservative Party or a Libertarian Party aren't joining a Conservative Party or a Libertarian Party, we will end up right back in this same position in a year from now, and everyone deserves every bit of boredom they get from assisting this game in repeating it's past errors.

I'm with you on that one. I know my party has only 3 members, but at least it's there for like-minded people.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I don't know what is what your irrational hate of the Liberals. We've all had similar ideals, all of us in the party. We could have called it the Big Brown Lump of Poo Poo Party if we wanted.

[Napoleon]

Wow Marokai you seem to have somehow confused a proposal to end two large, suffocating parties with a proposal to do what Marokai wants, or else!
You seem to have missed the fact that our President campaigned in support of more prudent spending and free trade, which is part of the core to the Liberal Party's platform! You seem to have overlooked that Snowguy is right in line with us on a majority of issues, from social policy to general foreign policy outlook to many game reform ideas.

Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that everyone in our party has to agree on everything. We generally agree with each other on the issues here in the Liberal Party. People choose to join a party based on the issues they find important. It is a personal decision. It is abs-freaking-lutely hilarious to watch the RPP socialist tell others what party they belong in.

None of us are picking apart the Labor Party's membership. You have a pretty wide range of social scores you know. I have a lot of respect for the Labor Party and its members. I hope you don't consume the Labor Party with your pettiness and bitter attitude.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Wow Marokai you seem to have somehow confused a proposal to end two large, suffocating parties with a proposal to do what Marokai wants, or else!
You seem to have missed the fact that our President campaigned in support of more prudent spending and free trade, which is part of the core to the Liberal Party's platform! You seem to have overlooked that Snowguy is right in line with us on a majority of issues, from social policy to general foreign policy outlook to many game reform ideas.

Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that everyone in our party has to agree on everything. We generally agree with each other on the issues here in the Liberal Party. People choose to join a party based on the issues they find important. It is a personal decision. It is abs-freaking-lutely hilarious to watch the RPP socialist tell others what party they belong in.

None of us are picking apart the Labor Party's membership. You have a pretty wide range of social scores you know. I have a lot of respect for the Labor Party and its members. I hope you don't consume the Labor Party with your pettiness and bitter attitude.

He just hates the party because you are in it, as far as I can figure, and he hates me for not hating you.

[Napoleon]

I know, Teddy, and it is an unhealthy obsession.

From day one Marokai has been slinging his mud. "Too big", "no ideology", "new JCP", and blah blah. He wants that stigma the JCP unfortunately had. None of what he says is true, it is easily debunked, and he can't handle the fact that the game doesn't revolve around him.

And to think, we have yet to actually begin our FIRST convention!!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Napoleon, my position here is very simple and based on something perfectly logical, and I'll walk you through it:

We were stuck in a two party system because the parties became too big.

Why did they become too big? Because people valued votes over sticking to any sort of ideology. Thus, they grew more and more bloated and inconsistent ideologically.

What was the proposal to solve that problem for? The caucus system, by design, was meant to encourage more ideological thinking. Caucuses were meant to be designed around individual philosophies or individual issues.

However, that doesn't solve the problem entirely, so Bgwah proposes dissolution. Why? Again, the parties were too big. Why were they too big? Again, because they became super-big-tent parties that were ideologically unrecognizable as anything.

So why would dissolution solve that? Because it would create smaller, more numerous parties.

Why would the goal be smaller, more numerous parties? Because parties had stopped prioritizing anything ideological and became giant vote-banks instead of actual parties.

What is the opposite of creating an ideologically consistent party that doesn't have a super big tent approach? The Liberals.

Therefore, I consider you (and the Communitarians) as being fundamentally opposed to how we solve our past mistakes inherently, by your very structure.