A Fork In the Road

[Yates]

Good evening.

Tonight, I address you not as a candidate or a leader; not as a critic or a cynic.  I address you tonight from the perspective of one Atlasian who is concerned over recent events which have occurred. 

Fantasy Elections are, as explained to me after I first joined, designed to be a place in which people are able to have fun and engage in friendly competition.  One needs not look further than a few threads away to see that many have taken this competition to a different level.  Tonight, I address you about the state and future of our forum.

I must begin by asking a rhetorical question.  Why has so much negativity developed in a place designed to promote fun?  I feel as though the answer to this question would best be achieved by recognizing the fact that all who post in this forum have an interest in politics.  Politics is the art of attacking a person’s credibility and integrity, and, in the process, destroying your own.  For a group of people who love and wish to be involved in politics, the negative behavior which occurred tonight and has occurred in the past is hardly surprising.

Yet, when members quit and leave because of the pure immensity of this negativity, we must recognize that it has gotten quite out of hand.  Fantasy politics are becoming personal, and this is creating a world of problems for our forum.  I am quite sure that many here are, quite frankly, sick and tired of hearing constant calls to rise above the negativity and attacks.  Tonight, I offer not merely a call for the end of this calamity.

Fantasy politics must return to being about the issues, about debate.  All who post here have intelligent opinions which should be shared with others and debated upon.  As it is, these elections are turning into mere popularity contests, and personal battles between posters.  I implore all who read these six paragraphs to return these elections to political debates, not personal squabbles.

My friends, we are at a fork in the road.  We can continue down the path were are currently traveling, and end up deep in the forest, with no light shining through the dense walls around us.  Or, we can choose a new path which will, one day, lead Atlasia back to the prime it once had.  I ask you, all of you, to choose the second path.  Let us work together to make it happen.

[TomC]

Excellent sentiment!

[Speed of Sound]

Well said Yate. Too much negativity has indeed plagued us to a point of severe damage

[Josh/Devilman88]

well said!

[Ebowed]

Excellent sentiment!

[Brandon H]

Well said. Positivity will go much further than Negativity.

[Gabu]

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to make politics non-personal.  It's a characteristic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in that it's better for everyone if no one goes negative and personal, but it has been shown in the past that people both strongly respond to negativity and refuse to admit this fact, which means that if one single person goes negative while no one else does, that person will immediately have an advantage.

It's a noble effort to get rid of negativity, but I have to question its plausibility, purely realistically speaking.

[Speed of Sound]

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to make politics non-personal.  It's a characteristic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in that it's better for everyone if no one goes negative and personal, but it has been shown in the past that people both strongly respond to negativity and refuse to admit this fact, which means that if one single person goes negative while no one else does, that person will immediately have an advantage.

It's a noble effort to get rid of negativity, but I have to question its plausibility, purely realistically speaking.

Pessamist

[The Duke]

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to make politics non-personal.  It's a characteristic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in that it's better for everyone if no one goes negative and personal, but it has been shown in the past that people both strongly respond to negativity and refuse to admit this fact, which means that if one single person goes negative while no one else does, that person will immediately have an advantage.

It's a noble effort to get rid of negativity, but I have to question its plausibility, purely realistically speaking.

True enough, but I think we can hold ourselves together for a week.

*Crosses fingers*

[Gabu]

Pessamist

There's a difference between pessimism and simply speaking realistically.  If no one wanted negativity, there wouldn't be any, and if even one person wants negativity, the whole thing is shot.

This does not mean that nothing should be done to curb excessive negativity, and I applaud Yates' sentiment towards the subject, but I nevertheless feel that fully eliminating negativity is entirely impossible.

[Yates]

I more than agree, Gabu, that eliminating all negativity is impossible.  Nonetheless, I believe that we must end the personal attacks.  Sure, one should attack his opponent on the issues or opinions, but attacking someone personally is what is driving people out of these forum.

[DanielX]

There's a fork in the road?

<takes fork>

Hey, now I have another fork....

[Speed of Sound]

Pessamist

There's a difference between pessimism and simply speaking realistically.  If no one wanted negativity, there wouldn't be any, and if even one person wants negativity, the whole thing is shot.

This does not mean that nothing should be done to curb excessive negativity, and I applaud Yates' sentiment towards the subject, but I nevertheless feel that fully eliminating negativity is entirely impossible.

i know, i was j/k. I do realize the extreme difficulty that comes with the downsizing of negativity.

[ilikeverin]

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to make politics non-personal.  It's a characteristic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in that it's better for everyone if no one goes negative and personal, but it has been shown in the past that people both strongly respond to negativity and refuse to admit this fact, which means that if one single person goes negative while no one else does, that person will immediately have an advantage.

It's a noble effort to get rid of negativity, but I have to question its plausibility, purely realistically speaking.

Hmm...

That gives me an idea

[CheeseWhiz]

I more than agree, Gabu, that eliminating all negativity is impossible.  Nonetheless, I believe that we must end the personal attacks.  Sure, one should attack his opponent on the issues or opinions, but attacking someone personally is what is driving people out of these forum.

I totally agree!

[Bdub]

Great speech Yates!

[Colin]

Nice speech Yates.

[jokerman]

Good speech, Yates.  This trend of character attacks is certainly disturbing.

Though I do get annoyed whenever someone points out a logical flaw in one candidate and someone complains about that beng too "negative."  If you believe in something, and you know believe your opponent is wrong on the issue and you have a logical and intelligent counter to your opponent, by all means attack with full force.  Let us not sacrifice good debate because some people might get their "feelings hurt."  If you can't stand the heat, get out of politics.

I must strongly commend, Yates, the call for us to end our personal squabbles and work together.  I'm tired of petty fueds and personal battles interfering with progress.  It's time to grow a spine and work through our differences.

[Jake]

I agree Preston. We're getting to the point where pointing out that your opponent is not as active as you are or that your opponent did not live up to campaign promises is viewed as "going negative". Going negative would be unjustly attacking someone's personal character, something that I don't think anyone has done here for awhile.