Sims Online Presidential Campaign Shapes Up

Ant writes "Wired News has an article on a campaign for the presidency of Alphaville, the biggest city in The Sims Online. Two challengers will square off in a final primary for the opportunity to unseat Alphaville's incumbent president, the appropriately named Mr-President, in next month's general election."

Comments

SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[bethane]

You do not have a right to free speech on games like "The Sims Online".

These games are a privledge, and if the communities are outraged about censorship, or anything else, well they should fight with their money.

Sidenote:
This may not be the case with TSO, but i've noticed in many MMORPGS (think EQ), people are so addicted to it, despite the fact they hate the company that owns it, they continue to play it.

They still piss and moan about it but they never actally cancel the game.

Maybe thats what happened here.

Re:SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[redJag]

A democracy doesn't imply free speech.

Re:SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[maxpublic]

Democracy - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives

Not true. A democracy can easily become a dictatorship, a tyranny of the will of the majority over the minority. It'd be quite easy for a democracy to outlaw any speech it doesn't agree with, e.g., a fanatically religious democracy could outlaw any mention of atheism, or religions other than those approved of by the state, or any criticism of the state church.

This is why our Founding Fathers were quite careful not to choose democracy but rather a limited, Constitutional form of republicanism for their new nation. So that a rabid, banal majority couldn't legally seize control of the government and use it to cruelly oppress the minority.

Max

Re:SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[AndroidCat]

It's traditional. Samuel Huntington, the first President of the United States, wasn't elected by popular vote either. :^P

Re:SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that worked.

Re:SIMS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[n3m6]

A democracy is majority rule, with protection of minority rights. Freedom of Speech gives the minority the ability to defend themselves.

Only two parties?

[fuzzy12345]

With only two candidates running, there won't be much of a diversity of viewpoints, and they'll no doubt have virtually (grin) indistinguishable policies on everything, in the middle of the political spectrum.

Art imitates life, I guess.

Democracy & Free Speech

[Baron_Yam]

I'd argue that a democracy without freedom of speech is not a true democracy.

If you can't speak freely, you can't expect to exchange information regarding the government - which means you're not able to freely cast an informed VOTE... in which case you have a sham democracy. QED.

Re:Democracy & Free Speech

[jfengel]

True. But true democracies are rare.

The United States, for example, has had to find ways to cut into political speech because it is possible to hijack it with access to media. That is, rich and poor were all allowed to speak, but the rich seemed to speak louder.

(The poor sometimes got together to form "unions" to speak with a loud, united voice, but that, too, got hijacked by corrupt people, which cast an unpleasant pall over the entire concept, even when it's still executed well.)

It appears that laws are never able to make a truly level, fair playing field, and therefore any democracy is going to be slanted one way or the other. The fact is you're still allowed to say whatever you want, but the louder you speak, the more likely it is the law will intervene. The laws are an unpleasant compromise.

Re:Democracy & Free Speech

[Zeinfeld]

The United States is a Republic, or Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy. The city-states of ancient Greece were true Democracies, for the most part since women couldn't vote. Native Americans had a form of true Democracy, except voting was just done at the tribal meeting when there was an important decision to make.

The definition of democracy has changed since 1776. It is essential to understand the distinction between representative and true democracy if you are going to read the Federalist Papers. Up to that point the last time Democracy had been tried on a significant scale was Greece and the rulling classes had been brought up on the death of Socrates - ordered by the democratic mob.

Of course the fact that the number of victims of even the milder Roman emperors such as Claudius was far greater than the number of deaths under democracy did not enter the debate. The fear that served the powers that were was fear of the mob.

2004 will be known as the first election where the Internet played a major role. Dean did not win the nomination, but he had a major effect. Neither Goldwater nor McGovern won the Presidency, but those two campaigns set the agenda for their parties for the next twenty years.

So the question to ask is when the first person will emerge from one of these online pseudo-elections to be elected to a real position? It certainly can happen, for over a hundred years the Oxford Union Society was where the political elite of the country was selected. Become President of the union and you were assured a political career. Of course this does not work as well these days and having been President is probably a liability.

Re:Wait...

[piquadratCH]

Go ask the people in Afganistan and Iraq how much they think Dubya is simulated...

Is this newsworthy?

[Rexz]

Thousands of small, self-elected Internet organisations with no power beyond their own membership elect leaders every day. I don't see how this story is any different from a medium sized EverQuest guild choosing a new leader or a discussion board adding a new moderator.

This "Government" appears to have no control other than through the actions of 100 or so voluntary members who have no more power than a normal player. Using this election as a case study of such small, self-policing authorities is valid, but it has no more authenticity than the politics 10 year-old's Secret Agents club.

What do you expect them to do in a LIFE SIMULATOR?

[Jack Zombie]

They're aren't taking the game "too seriously," they're just taking their fun seriously. And it is very interesting from a sociological point of view as well, since it crudely mimics reality.

Not everyone likes short games for lazy people with an attention span of... hey, look! Some dirt! Yum!

Besides, if real life is so good, why is everyone trying to get away from it?