Posted December 2, 2017 Individuals are willing to produce countless political parties. Yet, individuals are not willing to join another political party as either a representative, party member, or non-party member employee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2017 While yes this issue is wide spread with multiple parties of the same ideology and policies going against each other a lot of party's do have workers. The royal party has 1 guard, 3 advisors, 1 representative and the leader of course. Although I do agree we don't need so many party's of the same nature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2017 I think you have a point. I checked before I started one. Nether the Freedom party nor the Liberty party are actually liberty parties when you look at their platforms, so I felt the need to start one. But there does seem to be a lot of duplicate parties/platforms that only vary in the smallest degrees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2017 Though I believe in everyone' s chance to run for office, I do wish more followed the parties of the more veteran politicians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2017 Yes, besides people who want to volunteer there isnt much because we can't promise salaries without kenning how the economy will turn out so its a real struggle to get people on your side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 9, 2017 I have said it before, and I'll say it again. We can never have too many parties. Freedom is choice is good. And there is nothing wrong with people making their own party if they can't find a party that aligns with their wishes. Or if they simply want to try and run for governor themselves. However, I do agree there are issues in The Podium. Such as, Politicians posting and getting free PR in other candidates threads. And trying to poke holes in each other campaigns. And posts such as this one, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 @Norway174 why is that post a problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 @FatherOfTimes Total useless advertising for Lucious, and more importantly, it's highly misleading. And the topic contributes nothing. That sort of announcement is better suited to be posted inside of his own already established topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) @Norway174 I agree that it should have been posted in his already established forum, but how is the advertising useless and misleading? I felt what he said was straight forward. Edited December 10, 2017 by FatherOfTimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 @FatherOfTimes How exactly is "Vote Lucious" a good and constructive title, related to the context of the post? What if everyone made a post titled "Vote <insert politician here>", how would you still feel? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 I think he should have titled along the lines of his withdrawal rather than Vote Lucious Times. The title he chose, in my opinion was more to show he was now supporting Lucious. I think that his topic was more to let us know he wanted the community to support Lucious rather than let us know he was dropping out of the race...and that's why I think he gave it that particular title. If everyone did it, I feel it'd be pointless. However, if his intention was to make people focus more on Lucious rather than on his dropping out of the race than I think he chose the right title...this time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 5 hours ago, FatherOfTimes said: I think he should have titled along the lines of his withdrawal rather than Vote Lucious Times. 5 hours ago, FatherOfTimes said: However, if his intention was to make people focus more on Lucious rather than on his dropping out of the race than I think he chose the right title...this time! So you agree with me? And still continue to defend it? "This time!", care to elaborate? So do you mean, in the future, it's not okay to title something unrelated to the context of the topic? Then why is it fine this time? Would you still have said it's fine if the title was something like: "Vote <politician name here>"? And even if, his intentions was to make people focus more on Lucious rather than his dropping out. That, actually makes it sound even worse. And I certainly do not believe it requires it's own thread for it. Just so he can generate more "advertisement" for Lucious. You see my situation here? Either way I look at it. It just doesn't seem right, in my own personal opinion. And I think that's one of several issues the Podium is facing. Just to be clear, my issue is not with specifically that thread alone. My issue is that those types of threads do exist. I just grabbed the first one I saw on the front page to use as an example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 @Norway174 that makes sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 @FatherOfTimes Thank you! That may just be the most sensible thing you've ever said to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, Norway174 said: @FatherOfTimes Thank you! That may just be the most sensible thing you've ever said to me. Haha, I messaged you long time ago, but never heard from you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 11, 2017 I don't believe that this is a problem. Er have in Germany over 20 parties and they run all for the election, so all the other little parties can stay and do their Work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, MauriceClinton said: I don't believe that this is a problem. Er have in Germany over 20 parties and they run all for the election, so all the other little parties can stay and do their Work. Does each and every one of those parties only consist of one member? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 11, 2017 10 hours ago, DLimit said: Does each and every one of those parties only consist of one member? Plenty parties here only have one member, I agree with your issue viewpoint @DLimit . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 31, 2017 On 02/12/2017 at 7:12 AM, DLimit said: Individuals are willing to produce countless political parties. Yet, individuals are not willing to join another political party as either a representative, party member, or non-party member employee. 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! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 31, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 4:20 AM, Norway174 said: @FatherOfTimes How exactly is "Vote Lucious" a good and constructive title, related to the context of the post? What if everyone made a post titled "Vote <insert politician here>", how would you still feel? 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: Quote I think that his topic was more to let us know he wanted the community to support Lucious rather than let us know he was dropping out of the race 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* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 31, 2017 8 hours ago, JoelKeys said: In future, notify me of these things, I do listen to criticism unlike some people. Noted. But as I said, my issue weren't with that thread specifically. It's that type of threads, or titling of threads, in general. I just grabbed yours as the first example I could find. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 31, 2017 9 hours ago, JoelKeys said: 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* That was just petty, I have will not call out a politician like that, very disappointed.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 31, 2017 4 hours ago, Norway174 said: Noted. But as I said, my issue weren't with that thread specifically. It's that type of threads, or titling of threads, in general. I just grabbed yours as the first example I could find. 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites