hello /pol/, I'm curious for your interest, but would you

>>135203795
yeah, make the site. But like most of these sites, and maybe an example of why democracy can lack, is that quantity outweighs quality. /pol/ would be 100% better with 75% less threads/posts/posters

>>135203795
>>135205296
and then again furthermore, it matters if its not everyone speaking, who is speaking, and who has access to chime in, how can good voices be heard.

Which brings to the media. A relative handful few who are something of a mouthpiece and brainpiece of the entire populous,

instead of a forum where 150 million take sides and make a hundred thousand posts a second day after day. To attempt for quantity to not outweigh quality, a smallish amount of the population are chosen as the intellectual representatives, the inlookers and outlookers, to address issues and discuss directions of possible steerage.

>>135203795
Yeah, it would be amazing, but would making such a game be doable? Like how would you debate? You would just have to roleplay 100%, and what do you out of it? Debating, just that? I mean, there gotta be something more, right?

>>135205296
>>135205785
that's why i was thinking of avoiding of giving people the ability to freely communicate with people outside their party
it would be cool to attract a lot of people with variety of ideals. i was thinking there could be something like a timed debate where a select few people could argue on one topic and others could spectate and vote. the problem is that if the majority of the website goers are of a particular type, then it's too onesided
>>135206085
that's what I'm wondering. ultimately it seems like the aim would be popularity

>>135206704
Oh, I see what you mean, yeah it would be like 'mock politics', I thought this is kinda like what I heard mentioned 'red team blue team'.

But yeah: a website should be made for debates. And people choose generally what side of the debate they are on, and then they are in a private chat, and have to organize research for their debate, the best among them are realized (have to remove trolls.. have to make sure trolls dont gain power, so they can remove non trolls), and are some main representatives in the actual debate, though can access live any valid points made by members of that group.

>>135203795
I'd certainly love it.

I'd prefer a system of semi-anonymity. Like we'll have accounts an stuff but not have it linked to social media or anything like that.

>>135206704
>the problem is that if the majority of the website goers are of a particular type, then it's too onesided
well the catchy sell would be the elimination of echo chamberdness: If you think your beliefs are true, then you can test them against opposition. Many comment sections and forums are like this, there may even be a few sites.

What about everyone who has smaller roles? They would just quit because their caracter is boring as fuck. Maybe there should be set decisions in the game, like an event that you can choose, a crisis and what not, so public opinion becomes relevant, shifting tides, difference of opinions over time, like in the real world. Because else it would be a bunch of people with no end game, arguing about something which ultimately doesn't matter. There needs to be a porpouse to the game. Maybe like a country, where the players also have roles like real ministers in the country.

uh I don't get to read your thread when OP's pic is of CIA

>>135203795
We already have /pol/ where we battle, and I prefer anon.