The Coalition for the Reign of Free Thought 3

Home Forums Governmental Forums Political Parties The Coalition for the Reign of Free Thought 3

This topic contains 10 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Lechnology Lechnology 2 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #419728
    Profile photo of Lechnology
    Lechnology
    Participant

    2007. You are replying to a 5 year old thread. Seriously, Brickfilms.com admin, do you not understand forum etiquette? Enforce them and lock these outdated threads that are no longer relevant to your new site.

    And deleting my post? Clearly you know what your doing.******Dont try to insult any user and before say anything please read instruction of posting a comment in a topic.****** Rethink your objective for this site and stop instructing people to post on outdated threads.

    #419714
    Profile photo of Rakibul Hasan
    Rakibul Hasan
    Participant

    Cant join i am not at your country. If i were there must join your crew

    Thank you,
    Jamelucky7

    #419453
    Profile photo of Brix_Lover
    Brix_Lover
    Participant

    Well,it’s about nominating whoever wants to run. You don’t have to be in one of our parties to be nominated by us — you could be in another party entirely. We aren’t concerned about that.

    #267756
    Profile photo of Ladon
    Ladon
    Participant

    Ah, right right. What happens if two people in one group of five both want to run in one election? Omfg, controversy? Or will they just switch to one of the other parties?

    #267679
    Profile photo of Mr. Less
    Mr. Less
    Participant

    It just worked out that way, we had 15 members, and each party requires 5.

    #267596
    Profile photo of Ladon
    Ladon
    Participant

    Ah, I understand now. Three branches of the same political party with the same basic principles. Each branch can put forth a candidate, but each one will be running for essentially the same party.
    Not too shabby!

    Why three though? I would have settled with two, but I suppose it’s better to have too many than too few.

    #267590
    Profile photo of Watson
    Watson
    Participant

    That’s partially correct. These three legally separate parties were created to prevent cases like we had last election, when Monko was unable to run, simply because he wasn’t nominated (even though he had good plans and dedication).

    If you think about it, this format does little to help any single candidate from any of the entities. First of all, our former party is now split into three, each of which could nominate a candidate. This dilutes our membership, and crowds up the races. Furthermore, We are quite clear in stating that we do not actually endorse any candidate. We only nominate candidates so that they may run, even if we don’t agree with their plans — and we make it clear to our members that they are to vote individually on who they feel is best for the position.

    This format is not beneficial to us. In fact, it’s beneficial to the other parties, who do not have a policy of encouraging their voters to vote individually.

    #267587
    Profile photo of Ladon
    Ladon
    Participant

    Looks like you guys aren’t too happy about not getting a member elected, so you’re branching out to try and get even more possible candidates.

    #267577
    Profile photo of Aled Owen
    Aled Owen
    Participant

    What is the point of this crap!?

    It’s getting a bit like Microsoft…

    Yeah it is.

    -Aled

    #265868
    Profile photo of Legoman182182
    Legoman182182
    Participant

    When the does the next edition come out? It’s getting a bit like Microsoft…

    Legoman182182.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 11 total)

The topic ‘The Coalition for the Reign of Free Thought 3’ is closed to new replies.