Well I do appreciate it. Looking back the post is pretty shallow. I will be sure to not let it happen again, I aim for a good reputation

Alright you are either very young or have severe mental insecurities. You cannot take criticism well, AT ALL. This is how politics works sweetheart. You bash your opponents to gain a political lead. Also, the reason I dropped out was not due to lack of political knowledge, actually quite the contrary. I do not agree with all over Lucious' policies, but most of them are exactly what I would do. He is also significantly ahead in the polls, so I closed my political campaign in order to get ahead. Again, this is how politics works. I support Lucious because it is better to be a small part of something big than a big part of something small. You are the one, my friend, who is oblivious as to how politics works. You are a dreamer. Plain and simple. How are you going to be able to be governor 24/7, while running your own TV Network, producing multiple TV shows, and organising a monopoly of political parties. You are like a mouse, offering a cat a slice of cheese to leave it alone. You are the mouse, Lucious is the cat. You are making him this offer to join you to eliminate competition, but he is already ahead of you. Why would the cat accept a slice of cheese when he can just eat the mouse. Yes, it may be more hassle for the cat, having to catch the mouse, but the cat is bigger, faster, stronger. So it will eat. Lucious will eat you, as is evident by the polls. You cannot argue back against these points though. You won't. Why? Because you don't know how to. Prove me wrong, Ms. LaVie. Actually take each one of my points and argue against them. P.S How does it feel you were only 2 points ahead of someone not even running?

I know you weren't complimenting me but I do appreciate the feedback, I only wish you had of messaged me about this as I never thought about it but reading your arguments I do agree with you, I should have posted that in my own thread. As for the title, FatherOfTimes was correct here: But other than that I totally agree. In future, notify me of these things, I do listen to criticism unlike some people. *Cough* @FrancePourLaVie *cough*

I blame us party owners. We are making the parties too specific, that's not how a party works. Parties don't decide tax rates, candidates do. If someone made a party saying "We are against abortion and recreational use of drugs, we don't like big brother governments and we like low tax rates" then that would be much better, because then individual candidates are more willing to join that party and work around the guidelines. A party is supposed to have a small vague manifesto and then candidates who agree with it join the party and develop those ideas into a campaign. Too many parties outline every little tiny tax percentage, legal and illegal drug, even down to what tax dollars will be spent on. That is for the candidate to decide, not the party. By making specific guidelines your are cancelling people out. Someone might agree with all of your policies but one, and because they think the tax rate should be 10% and not 12.5%, they are making a whole new party. So yeah. Vauger parties people!

Don't think she was complimenting you...

I am sorry but you clearly do not. This never has or will work in real life, it will not work on Identity. You seem to get offly defensive when being challenged, why not attack my points. You have very little business experience at most based off of this idea. Prove me wrong. Do what I did. Take my points and argue against them with facts, not opinions. Do that or do not insult my intelligence by coming back at my well-written response with a two lined reply with no facts.

Clearly you have your views, but I have qualifications in business and I can tell you that every single person would rather the free $10,000 than a $500,000 valuation. Even if you have the valuation correct, most people will not be comfortable with giving up 50% of their business because they immediately lose a significant amount of scalability and potential. As a matter of fact, small businesses will be more reluctant to give up 50% of their business because they are more than likely going to grow in the future. Imagine someone buys a business and pays $100 for 100 shares as the sole shareholder. You could offer them $500 for 50 shares (decuple their original valuation), but they still will not take it because they know that more than likely within a year their business will be worth more than the proposed $1000 valuation. The same thing applies. Let me paint an example. A small retail business turns over just over $100,000 in annual turnover in their 4th week of trading in Identity. Of that, they have profited $30,000 (the average profit for a retail business is 30%). They hear about your programme and decide to take a shot at winning the grand prize of $250,000. The $250,000 that you propose will be an investment of 2.5x their annual turnover, but they also have to give up 50% of their business to you. Assuming they use your $250,000 to invest the same in the next 4 weeks, by the same calculations we can work out that from the original $250,000 spent, they will turnover approximately $325,000. Of that turnover, the profits will be $97,500. The small business in question has increased their profits 3 fold, but they have had to give up 50% of their business for it. Why would they give up 50% when in reality, the chances are it won't take long to increase your profits 3 fold anyway. I don't think you really understand how business works, but that isn't such a great deal for any business. It's why Alan Sugar doesn't take part of the companies that compete for an investment. The small business would be more inclined to take the $10,000 participation money, which is 10% of their entire annual income, and walk away with 100% of their business. I think you have the attitude that the small business should be privileged to be having your investment, when the reality is you have no expertise, no experience, nothing to show for all of your claims and the big point I should make is that this is an equally valuable deal for both parties. You can't make people work for an investment only to take 50% of their company when they win. Especially small businesses who are going to want to keep as much equity as possible in order to leave doors open for future investments. If the small business really did want to give up 50% of their company, they will find a real investor and make a pitch. Why would they go on a show to try and win an investment when literally anyone with the money would do this deal. As I said, you are making people win the olympics for an opportunity to buy the gold medal. If you have to work for a prize, you should get the prize. You shouldn't have to work for it, then pay for it. Why not host this show, and take no equity in the companies, like the real life show does. This way, people will actually be inclined to want to come on your show. Again, it is a good idea in theory, but the way you have proposed this is pretty horrible and it needs work.

So why would I not join the programme, lose on purpose and walk away with 100% of my company and a free $10,000. I agree with @Capped in that I like the idea and appreciate the ambition, but I don't think your plan adds up. I do not believe this is worth it. Very few would willingly give up 50% of their business for any amount, let alone have to work for it. It is kind of like winning the olympics and then as a reward being given the opportunity to purchase a golden medal, when everyone gets a silver one whether they win or not.

As much as I like the idea, what you are offering isn't worth it to us business people. I am sure we could find someone willing to invest for significantly less than 50% of our company. If we have to compete to win, the prize should be a no strings attached cash prize. Otherwise, I would rather find a private investor who would hand me the same amount you are offering for less than 50%.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/joelkeys/ Feel free to add me. Me and my friends are constantly looking for more people to play random shit with

If anyone has tabletop simulator let me know, I would love to teach some people how to play Secret Hitler or even better, One Night: Ultimate Werewolf. Either way, let me know. P.S. Secret Hitler is also available on SecretHitler.io. If anyone wants to learn please tell me, I love it.

I have decided to withdraw from the election in an effort to assist my (former) fellow running mate, Lucious Times. While I can't say I agree with all of his policies, he is lightyears ahead of every other candidate in the mix. He has shown he is determined, active and motivated into making the Island a better place for all sections of the populous. Good Luck Lucious!

It is a very cool game which can be bought for real life, but is free to play online at secrethitler.io. Play a few games and let me know if you want me to join you.

I wouldn't mind this. A right to small sidearms for self defense. This absolute right to own anything you want is just idiotic, but this system I could get behind.

Only to the incompetent.

That doesn't make it a basic need. I go for walks all the time, that doesn't mean that I expect the government to pay for my walks because it is classes a basic need.

It is a game based in a FICTIONAL American state. Stop treating the game like the laws and systems are already set in stone, we have the opportunity to correct the mess that is the American society in this game.

I have something which is bothering me. The inaction of action. Ever since I came here to the political arena, few candidates are constantly on and interacting with their supporters. I am guilty of the contrary, however it is still sad to see. We keep hearing about policies and debates and interviews with candidates but it never actually happens. Reporters claim they are hosting this and hosting that but when the time comes, everyone always has an excuse not to show up. It has become rather disappointing actually. It is due to this, that I am announcing that in two days, Sunday the 5th of November, I will be conducting an interview on any candidate who has the guts to speak to the public. None of this "I can only type" stuff or "My sister's cousin's mum's wedding is in three years so I need to plan it" nonsense. Be there and be ready. As for the public, encourage your candidates to show up. Make them show you just how much you are worth to them. If they cannot even speak to address issues, how are they to make our country better? 2 days.

Why?

When is this debate?

Thanks for including me.

Okay you are clearly an incompetent candidate. I made criticisms which you completely avoided. What makes me untrustworthy or crooked? You make unsubstantiated claims. Baseless accusations are what sinks candidacies. You completely avoided my point. How can it be universal if you only get it if you pay? So how does a bodyguard get healthcare then? If this is your system and someone needs healthcare, why is it their fault? If a bodyguard does get injured, how is he supposed to follow your own procedures and pay $500 for it if you are going to claim that he is abusing your flawed system? Again you completely dodged the point. You claim you will only pay for basic needs then go on to say you will fund a banquet dinner. How is this a basic need? Even still, how come you are willing to pay for dinners but not a salary for a Health Minister? Because that is real life. You are completely ignoring my criticisms. In real life, statistically more Muslims commit terrorist attacks, so that's why it works. Online, there are more non-muslims, so online this law would not work at all and would only cause unrest. All you have done is proven to me that you are a very young and inexperienced candidate who is clearly incompetent at contesting criticisms. If you even want the privellige of my time anymore then you can do it through an official debate in Discord with a news reporter, then at least I can absolutely destroy you in a more public form where you don't have bum chums to back you up.

This shows how incredibly unprofessional you are as a candidate. You mention that he doesn't understand how the system works and that he criticizes blindly, but provide nothing to back these statements up. What system is it that he doesnt understand? The non-existent healthcare system? I think his criticism was very poorly conveyed, however I have no trouble in seeing what it is he is saying and so one could argue you are the one being blind. So, as a member of this community who may be harder to criticise because I am not new, let me provide some real criticisms about your "healthcare" plan. First of all, how can you chose to pay for a universal healthcare on a day to day basis? I doubt someone get's out of bed saying "I need to pay $500 to the government because I plan on breaking my leg later!". What if you pay the $500 and don't use it? Does it carry on to the next day? If I pay it one day but don't need medical help until the next day, do I need to pay it again? There are too many holes in this plan. Healthcare cannot be in place for some people but not for others. I also don't know how you can claim it is universal healthcare when it is only available to people who pay. Next, what are your estimates based on? Because I am 100% sure the developers have stated multiple times that money-making will be similar to that of real life, so anyone who can afford to pay $500 per day can afford private healthcare. If you were to educate yourself on how the system works before criticising others for the same thing, I think your little campaign would go a lot smoother. Assuming a system like the one you propose did work (highly unlikely), how would it be abused? Someone pays the fee and doesn't take the healthcare? Someone doesn't pay but takes the healthcare anyway? Why would you give it to someone who hasn't paid? This statement seems redundant. Regarded by who? Yourself? I fail to see how a banquet dinner is categorised as a "basic need". It seems to me like you will use public tax dollars to feed yourself and other members of government, while making people pay $500 per day for healthcare. Why? To prevent terrorism? I understand why politicians in real life would want to ban Burqas, and while I disagree with it, I see the argument. However I find myself asking this question, how many muslims are going to be playing Identity? Probably quite a few, but not nearly as much as atheists or Christians. I would say that in the US and UK servers, the vast majority, if not all of the terrorist attacks will be carried out by atheists or Christians, not Muslims, and even though some Muslims will play in these countries, I doubt many of them support terrorism. This law helps no one. Looking at all of the points I have raised, can you seriously claim this is a correct statement? Usually I would not be this aggressive, however you have insulted the very people who are voting for you by completely ignoring someones criticisms and belittling them for your own ego. Well, Mr PoorLaVie, I cannot wait to see you respond to a well-written and thoroughly revised list of criticisms. Good luck.

It would work. Realistically the same person or people with similar policies would win for a few weeks in a row. Then the trend might change. The problem with giving absolute rights is that you can never change your decision. We shouldn't make such a huge commitment before the game is even out.

I don't think we should have a right to bear arms. I think it should be a choice for the governor not a right. As a wise man once said, "You are entitled to nothing."