Updated Polls

[slovaceck 58]

@BrianHamilton I understand that, but ultimately, if he decides to run, he can. And say he runs and wins in the real game, you can't stop him from doing so. I agree he may not be the most serious and/or professional candidate, but he is a candidate. We simply cannot deny that. So if these polls actually want to represent how a real election in the Identity world may go, they have to include all candidates, no matter how they portray themselves on the forums. 

[Xilvius 32]

All of my policies are publicly displayed.  More questions about the platform can be discussed personally, because we like to know our party members.

[BrianHamilton 214]

5 minutes ago, slovaceck said:

@BrianHamilton I understand that, but ultimately, if he decides to run, he can. And say he runs and wins in the real game, you can't stop him from doing so. I agree he may not be the most serious and/or professional candidate, but he is a candidate. We simply cannot deny that. So if these polls actually want to represent how a real election in the Identity world may go, they have to include all candidates, no matter how they portray themselves on the forums. 

Apologies if it seemed as though I had an issue with him running in the candidacy race as that is not the case at all. In fact, I believe that everybody should have the right to run if they feel they are up for it. The issue was that I did not feel as though he was taking it seriously enough by putting no effort into his campaign thread and that is why he was removed from the poll.

 

The purpose of this poll is not to include all candidates, it's to include all of the most active, serious and hardest working candidates. If we included everyone who ever made a thread about running, the list would be pages long!

[slovaceck 58]

5 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

Apologies if it seemed as though I had an issue with him running in the candidacy race as that is not the case at all. In fact, I believe that everybody should have the right to run if they feel they are up for it. The issue was that I did not feel as though he was taking it seriously enough by putting no effort into his campaign thread and that is why he was removed from the poll.

 

The purpose of this poll is not to include all candidates, it's to include all of the most active, serious and hardest working candidates. If we included everyone who ever made a thread about running, the list would be pages long!

I agree with the most active candidate, because, as you said, we would have a list miles long. But we simply can't deny someone the right to be in a poll because they aren't the most serious or hard working candidate. If he wants to run, he can, and he can win. I mean look at the US President Trump, many people said that he shouldn't be running, and I bet plenty of people wanted to scratch him off the ballot for not being a serious politician, but we just can't. It isn't a just representation of the political climate to cut an active member of the political field off of a poll because other politicians complained about him. Imagine how many elections would be easily won if that was how it really worked. 

[slovaceck 58]

(Sorry I did not add this before) Also, I believe that he does have a decent post that explains his party. It can be found here. Although it is simple, he does list his policies. 

[BrianHamilton 214]

5 minutes ago, slovaceck said:

I agree with the most active candidate, because, as you said, we would have a list miles long. But we simply can't deny someone the right to be in a poll because they aren't the most serious or hard working candidate. If he wants to run, he can, and he can win. I mean look at the US President Trump, many people said that he shouldn't be running, and I bet plenty of people wanted to scratch him off the ballot for not being a serious politician, but we just can't. It isn't a just representation of the political climate to cut an active member of the political field off of a poll because other politicians complained about him. Imagine how many elections would be easily won if that was how it really worked. 

I understand what you're saying but it's not that he wasn't "the most serious", it's that he didn't seem to be serious at all. That is where the issue was. However, as I read earlier, he has since updated his thread and I believe that he is now worthy of being re-added to the poll ( @NanoSpace ). He appears to be making much more of an effort now.

[BrianHamilton 214]

HOWEVER, he is still lacking a proper list of policies and laws. He explained a lot of things very well, but he is still missing a list of policies which is a crucial part of a campaign.

[slovaceck 58]

5 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

I understand what you're saying but it's not that he wasn't "the most serious", it's that he didn't seem to be serious at all. That is where the issue was. However, as I read earlier, he has since updated his thread and I believe that he is now worthy of being re-added to the poll ( @NanoSpace ). He appears to be making much more of an effort now.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I did not get the chance to see his previous post. But the point still stands, even a candidate who is not serious at all could still run for governor in game, and we cannot stop them. I would not personally like that, but I can't say "No you're not taking this seriously, you can't run." That person could still run and win if they got the vote. 

[Xilvius 32]

6 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

HOWEVER, he is still lacking a proper list of policies and laws. He explained a lot of things very well, but he is still missing a list of policies which is a crucial part of a campaign.

It's biased for someone in the campaign to demand what information i should have publicly available to be considered in a public poll. Of course any competition will not want me to be "allowed" to be on it. Certainly not when I was in second place in votes.

[slovaceck 58]

6 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

HOWEVER, he is still lacking a proper list of policies and laws. He explained a lot of things very well, but he is still missing a list of policies which is a crucial part of a campaign.

Sorry, but I see a list of policies in his post. 

Platform Policies

Our platform polices will be and will remain always to support small government, the lowest possible tax rate, and gun legalization to all PMC's with registration

It is the right of the citizens to have the means to defend themselves against vagrant criminals. If we take the firearms out of the hands of the citizens we leave them defenseless against the criminal organizations that reign over black market economies. Where we believe in the capabilities of the police force, we also believe that an armed society, is a polite one.

We will not be concerning ourselves with things of lesser consequence, such as jaywalking, noise complaints, 

 

You won't see Draconian Laws or penalties under the Unification Party; We believe in Bipartisan policies, that benefit the community as a whole and endorse economic stimulation and growth.  Our policies will always reflect these basic values and understandings, you won't be distracted with flashy websites to disguise corruption or totalitarianism. 

[ColeBarron 27]

7 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

HOWEVER, he is still lacking a proper list of policies and laws. He explained a lot of things very well, but he is still missing a list of policies which is a crucial part of a campaign.

I think if we are going by this standard, we should remove FrancePourLavie from the polls. LOL 

[BrianHamilton 214]

5 minutes ago, Xilvius said:

It's biased for someone in the campaign to demand what information i should have publicly available to be considered in a public poll. Of course any competition will not want me to be "allowed" to be on it. Certainly not when I was in second place in votes.

You should consider taking on some constructive criticism and feedback every once in a while rather than attempting to create conflict with me at every opportunity.

As within the Discord, I have complimented your recent increase in effort and I believe that you are definitely worthy of being re-added to the poll (as I stated in my earlier post) so you should be grateful for that compliment, however, you should also consider any feedback you are given, regardless of whom it is given by. Be grateful for any feedback given and consider it, even if you choose not to accept it.

 

Listing your policies for things such as:

• Gun Laws
• Gender Roles
• LGBTQ+
• Healthcare
• Right to practice religion
• How will you help newly-founded and smaller businesses to grow and create more jobs?

These are all important points which the public should know if you want more votes.

 

9 minutes ago, slovaceck said:

Sorry, but I see a list of policies in his post. 

Platform Policies

Our platform polices will be and will remain always to support small government, the lowest possible tax rate, and gun legalization to all PMC's with registration

It is the right of the citizens to have the means to defend themselves against vagrant criminals. If we take the firearms out of the hands of the citizens we leave them defenseless against the criminal organizations that reign over black market economies. Where we believe in the capabilities of the police force, we also believe that an armed society, is a polite one.

We will not be concerning ourselves with things of lesser consequence, such as jaywalking, noise complaints, 

 

You won't see Draconian Laws or penalties under the Unification Party; We believe in Bipartisan policies, that benefit the community as a whole and endorse economic stimulation and growth.  Our policies will always reflect these basic values and understandings, you won't be distracted with flashy websites to disguise corruption or totalitarianism. 

I have read that, however, it's a very general description and not an actual list and he has missed out so many important issues such as the ones I just listed. He mentioned very briefly about gun laws, however, he didn't say who can apply for gun licences or what classes as a crime when it comes to self defence, etc.

Also, by saying "We will not be concerning ourselves with things of lesser consequence, such as jaywalking, noise complaints" it's very heavily implied that smaller crimes will just be completely ignored. Yes, they are a bit of an inconvenience, however, they are still necessary.

 

Imagine yourself in real life, trying to sleep or just have dinner and there's a giant party going on across the street blasting out tunes through loud speakers and you can barely hear yourself think. Would you not wish to report that? For the most part, a simple warning and request to "keep the noise down" would suffice and then go without any further action, however, if it continued, it's worth sanctioning (I'm aware you can't fine for jaywalking, etc., but for the sake of roleplay we should discuss it).

Jaywalking is also dangerous and puts the individual and drivers at risk.

 

Back to the original point, I don't see a list of policies and, @Xilvius, I'm not trying to be rude. I was complimenting you (which is rare within this political race for any politician to do) and giving you some friendly feedback. That's all. Don't start conflict with me about it otherwise it just makes you look bad.

[Xilvius 32]

The important things in my policies are there, It disclaims we will not be concerning ourselves with lesser issues, like gender roles, religions, ect. They're distractions from real issues, like your 15% tax.

[BrianHamilton 214]

Also, the entire section of your "Policies" is simply subtle slander and digs aimed towards my campaign.

[BrianHamilton 214]

5 minutes ago, Xilvius said:

The important things in my policies are there, It disclaims we will not be concerning ourselves with lesser issues, like gender roles, religions, ect. They're distractions from real issues, like your 15% tax.

Gender discrimination is a "lesser issue" for you? That sums up your entire campaign in a nutshell.

I tried complimenting you and being friendly and you appear to be incredibly ungrateful for that and my suggestion to @NanoSpace to re-add you to the list. Instead, you take every opportunity to create conflict with me for no apparent reason.

 

Please learn to mature a bit more if you wish to continue this discussion.

[Xilvius 32]

Any reference to draconian laws in my campaign that yours happens to support is merely coincidental

[Xilvius 32]

5 minutes ago, BrianHamilton said:

Gender discrimination is a "lesser issue" for you? That sums up your entire campaign in a nutshell.

I tried complimenting you and being friendly and you appear to be incredibly ungrateful for that and my suggestion to @NanoSpace to re-add you to the list. Instead, you take every opportunity to create conflict with me for no apparent reason.

 

Please learn to mature a bit more if you wish to continue this discussion.

Well it isn't my job to help you get elected, Mr. Hamilton. For the record, I don't think anyone here in this fine community has been discriminating against genders. We can see what you think of the fine citizens out there.

[NanoSpace 66]

Since the poll is almost over I will not be adding The Unified Party, but the next poll I will.

[slovaceck 58]

1 hour ago, NanoSpace said:

Since the poll is almost over I will not be adding The Unified Party, but the next poll I will.

You added them 12 hours ago and the poll still has 4 days left. I don't see how that is "almost over". This polling service so far seems to be as unbiased as the Russian Media when discussing Putin. If anyone is looking for a fair and unbiased representation of the Identity Political Spectrum, this does not seem to be the place to go. 

[Mutant_Pig 5]

Could the Roman Catholic Party join the polls for the month of November? 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Mutant_Pig

[NanoSpace 66]

1 hour ago, slovaceck said:

You added them 12 hours ago and the poll still has 4 days left. I don't see how that is "almost over". This polling service so far seems to be as unbiased as the Russian Media when discussing Putin. If anyone is looking for a fair and unbiased representation of the Identity Political Spectrum, this does not seem to be the place to go. 

The big reason I'm hesitant on adding them is because they were, note were, not being serious about this and I wanted it to be so. I had a couple parties bring up to me their concern about them taking all the seriousness out of the poll and I did my best to fix that issue, once I saw that they were starting to actually show some seriousness I was willing to give them a try, but I would like to put them in an even footing instead of starting late. The only reason I first put them in the poll in the first place was because they brought it up in voice chat with me that they wanted to see how well a non serious party would do, I was curious about it as well so I did, but the moment it became a problem I ended it. I will add them to the next poll if they are serious about this whole thing, but calling me about as similar to the Russian Media because I wanted to keep the poll in order doesn't make me want to what you want. This includes updating their posting with legitimate policies and ideals without jabbing at other parties for their policies, that's what debates and campaigns are for, not the direct foundation of the political party. I am 100% willing to add them to the polls, but I will only add serious, well defined parties that want to actually run, that way to keep the list organized without too many parties. I'm sorry that taking them off the poll made you upset, but I did so while I figured out how to handle this situation, calling me names and harassing me doesn't help me figure out what to do.  

1 hour ago, Mutant_Pig said:

Could the Roman Catholic Party join the polls for the month of November? 

 

 

I'll take a look at the page, but probably yes.

Edited November 3, 2017 by NanoSpace

[slovaceck 58]

7 minutes ago, NanoSpace said:

 I had a couple parties bring up to me their concern about them taking all the seriousness out of the poll and I did my best to fix that issue, once I saw that they were starting to actually show some seriousness I was willing to give them a try, but I would like to put them in an even footing instead of starting late.

I was not trying to be offensive, apologies if I was. I just don't understand how you can call this a serious poll if you remove a political party because you receive complaints from their competitors. How is that in any way serious? If they decide to run and people start voting for them, you cannot stop them from running or prevent them from winning because their competitors start complaining about them. That would be like the moderators removing all the other Security Firm's posts in the business thread because I complain about them not being as serious as I am about the game. 

You have a lot of power here, and I appreciate what you are doing with it, I think this will go far. 

[NanoSpace 66]

7 minutes ago, slovaceck said:

I was not trying to be offensive, apologies if I was. I just don't understand how you can call this a serious poll if you remove a political party because you receive complaints from their competitors. How is that in any way serious? If they decide to run and people start voting for them, you cannot stop them from running or prevent them from winning because their competitors start complaining about them. That would be like the moderators removing all the other Security Firm's posts in the business thread because I complain about them not being as serious as I am about the game. 

You have a lot of power here, and I appreciate what you are doing with it, I think this will go far. 

I think you keep missing my point. I have no problems with them being in the poll or running, I took them down because their original posting consisted of 5 lines and the other parties on the poll were concerned about the poll becoming saturated. I removed them while I figured out what to do and to give them time to fix their problems. The Unified Party has now fixed a lot of problems that I wanted fixed and I said I would add them again since they have a much more thought out idea of what their party is.

[slovaceck 58]

11 minutes ago, NanoSpace said:

I think you keep missing my point. I have no problems with them being in the poll or running, I took them down because their original posting consisted of 5 lines and the other parties on the poll were concerned about the poll becoming saturated. I removed them while I figured out what to do and to give them time to fix their problems. The Unified Party has now fixed a lot of problems that I wanted fixed and I said I would add them again since they have a much more thought out idea of what their party is.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you can't simply remove someone from a poll because their competitors complain about them. A different analogy would be a referee of a sports game ejecting a whole team because their opponents complain that they do not play the "right way". I don't get what justifies the parties being allowed to eliminate a potential candidate. In the real world you can't eliminate a candidate because he isn't serious enough. Imagine they had removed Trump from the ballot because Hillary Clinton said he wasn't a serious politician, it just isn't realistic at all. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by slovaceck

[LuciousTimes 1,249]

4 hours ago, BrianHamilton said:

In other words, you can either vote for a man who, for some reason, pretends to be a magically talking, bipedal lion or you can vote for someone who isn't insane.

Role playing...calling someone insane is pretty disrespectful!  Wouldn't expect that from you!