The Marrocidenian war

[Penchant]

True nobles live under monarchy. The rest are just Republican politicians, or sheep of the Gods under theocracy.

Bull crap, every noble is a politician except in Aurvandil as claimed by Mendicant, which I wish I could participate in for a month, or a week, but my character at the moment would not join. I nearly said never but because of the way I role play my character in a long term, seen by few, manner it could perhaps happen eventually, but no time soon. OOC, not even talking about your military or gold maneuvering, Aurvandil is amazing due to its political system, which is that it does not exist.

[Vellos]

Yes, well you give the impression you believe things such as elections truly safeguard the freedoms and civil liberties of the people, and in turn represents the people, which in this day and age for anyone to still believe such nonsense is shocking, as you would put it.

 

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

[Zakilevo]

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

....

Dictatorship grants more freedom? ...

[Draco Tanos]

In theory I guess it could...  If say the preceding Republic curtailed many freedoms.  There is such a think as a benevolent dictator. 

Those are far less common in the modern era.

[Lychaon]

Bull crap, every noble is a politician except in Aurvandil as claimed by Mendicant, which I wish I could participate in for a month, or a week, but my character at the moment would not join. I nearly said never but because of the way I role play my character in a long term, seen by few, manner it could perhaps happen eventually, but no time soon. OOC, not even talking about your military or gold maneuvering, Aurvandil is amazing due to its political system, which is that it does not exist.

Everyone's got a price, eh? 

When I first met BattleMaster I was tempted to enter Aurvandil, I guess like many other people that don't integrate the main player-core, because of the number of people (which almost ensures a realm is in the top of the relevance in the continent), and because their Wiki background was quite elaborated comparing other realms. As I said some time ago, for many players it seems the main thing here is knowing from the beginning they're going to join a powerful realm, rather than the idea of helping on the construction of a small realm that is in its growing-surviving phase. Once they taste that notoriety, I guess for them the possibility to access the highest positions goes in a second place, if the ruler gets to keep the illusion of a promotional system.

I'm glad to haven't chosen Aurvandil, and mostly after visiting this forum regularly. But I can understand new players find it a very tempting place to start.

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

I think he wasn't saying that exactly. I agree that many times our idea of Democracy has little to do with our true capacity to practice our right to chose our representatives. Unfortunately, politic parties have uncountable ways to protect themselves against "disturbing ideas". So finally, we the citizens, only can choose what we think is the "less bad" option among the very limited options we have.

Democracy as we know it today isn't a good politic system, but indeed is the best way a modern society can chose to rule itself.

[Nosferatus]

Depends also what kind of democracy.
Yet still the peoples majority rules, not the absolute perfect solution or that which is best for everyone(or most people).
No it's simple the outcome of a choice from the majority of the population.
And there opinions are again formed by there environment threw the years and how they process that.
If that society is also a free market society and allows campaigning and commercially selling out ideals or political parties, it is thus those who have the most influence on the environment of the people who have the influence on the election and thus rule.
The politicians who derive from this endlessly compete with each other for a chance to rule.
This will eventually aslo effect what will happen and how the outcome will serve the voter.
There is no clear leadership because the politician is there because of the popele who again voted for them because of there opinions formed by all the aspects in there life that made them/society.
Society is again influenced by culture religion, and now a days mostly all forms of media and the culture of individualism which is dominate in the western world(and more and more in the rest of it).Good and bad is not as clear as it used to be as now it changes constantly and while mc donalds tells me there right while the go green mega store tells me there right.
Its snake that bites his own tail (ouroboros) where no one is 'really' in charge, but more what ever is the leading trend at that time.

The point with a monarchy is that every choice made is the absolute perfect solution or decision.
There blood line is destined 'n blessed by god him self to rule and thus the ultimate form of justice as it is gods will.
Yet the problem with this is that obviously people just claim to be that and we never really know if there really gods favourite pick.
But still if that King was dedicated to create a stable and peaceful society and always did whats close to a common good, he could.
Where in a democracy that is shrouded in the shadow of competition with no consistent leadership.

But offcourse theres also the effect of becoming ' the man' of the nation and losing your sanity to replace it with extreme narcisism or megalomania.
Which happens all to often.

The point with a king is that he can really amke things done, good or bad.
An insane king can do ALOT of damage.
And that gives the people a feeling of helplessness and opression.

[DamnTaffer]

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

The problem is that most historical dictators have gone mad. Finding a consistantly sane one beats the problem

[Chenier]

The problem is that most historical dictators have gone mad. Finding a consistantly sane one beats the problem

The problem is finding a successor that's just as good, should you truly have found the perfectly benevolent dictator.

I, for one, would love to see something happen to Mendicant, such as capture in battle, to see what happens with the rulership elections.

[DamnTaffer]

The problem is finding a successor that's just as good, should you truly have found the perfectly benevolent dictator.

I, for one, would love to see something happen to Mendicant, such as capture in battle, to see what happens with the rulership elections.

You'll be disapointed I assure you...

[Indirik]

All that nonsense about elections is the double speak and propaganda I'm talking about. Not being allowed to announce or discuss your candidacy only serves to enshrine the old guard and existing power structure in place. You've guaranteed that the only people that will hold power are those who already have it. Which is perfect if the only thing you're interested in is ensuring that nothing changes. It's very convenient if one of your old guard happens to get kicked out via capture or wounds, and some outsider happens to get himself elected on a fluke. Just wait a couple weeks and elect him back into office. Gets rid of all that inconvenient placeholder/benchwarmer controversy.

[Chenier]

All that nonsense about elections is the double speak and propaganda I'm talking about. Not being allowed to announce or discuss your candidacy only serves to enshrine the old guard and existing power structure in place. You've guaranteed that the only people that will hold power are those who already have it. Which is perfect if the only thing you're interested in is ensuring that nothing changes. It's very convenient if one of your old guard happens to get kicked out via capture or wounds, and some outsider happens to get himself elected on a fluke. Just wait a couple weeks and elect him back into office. Gets rid of all that inconvenient placeholder/benchwarmer controversy.

Not so lucky with the unelected ruler, though.

[egamma]

Here's a fun exersize -read through what Mendicant/NoblesseChevaleresque has to say, but replace "Aurvandil" with "North Korea" and "Mendicant" with "Kim Jong Un", and "Nobles" with "Communist Party".

The Eternal Treasury is kept and maintained by Sarit after all, the Royal Purser simply fills out the forms. The courts and the Communist Party decide verdicts and Kim Jong Un passes judgement, the Arbiter of Justice merely enforces the punishment and ruling he is told to enforce. They cannot be politicians in this system, nor can they serve themselves by being placed in these positions, they can only serve Kim Jong Un and the People's Republic of North Korea.

[Vellos]

Here's a fun exersize -read through what Mendicant/NoblesseChevaleresque has to say, but replace "Aurvandil" with "North Korea" and "Mendicant" with "Kim Jong Un", and "Nobles" with "Communist Party".

Rather my point.

Except he's advocating his position OOCly. Which has me simultaneously very amused and a wee bit concerned.

The problem is finding a successor that's just as good, should you truly have found the perfectly benevolent dictator.

The problem is that most historical dictators have gone mad. Finding a consistantly sane one beats the problem

No, the problem is they fail. And they're morally wrong to begin with. It's fun in a game, just like playing god-mode is fun in a game. But leaving the game and talking like in-game systems make sense out-of-game is like turning off god-mode, walking outside, and trying to alter the weather. You've made two major errors: external validity bias and self-delusion.

[Uzamaki]

Here's a fun exersize -read through what Mendicant/NoblesseChevaleresque has to say, but replace "Aurvandil" with "North Korea" and "Mendicant" with "Kim Jong Un", and "Nobles" with "Communist Party".

So much win.

[Lanyon]

erm...

Okay, yeah, I'm just gonna' drop the mic now and claim victory. You actually just claimed that dictatorship is a better safeguard of liberty than democracy, on an OOC level, not ICly at all. Methinks you need a history lesson– especially French history. You could learn the language and some historical truth all at once.

did he mention dictatorship in that quote? I don't think so. I think what he meant to say is that constituents can almost never be truely and fairly represented in a democracy.