Voting is open
...so is that before or after the +3 Legitimacy we got from our constitution not being a dictatorship in disguise?
After.
There is a problem here. You're saying that :
A) The Declaration of Independence contained a set of ideals that are good and moral to this day.
B) That these morals were foundational to the USA, and thus part of the core of the nation.

Now, we can assume that if those ideals were there, and that they were foundational to the USA, that the revolutionaries, the guys who took a world power to fight for independence, would have actively believed in them and tried to execute them, thus leading us to point
C) Revolutionaries try to fight for ideals.

The question then is, how did we get to point
D) Slavery exists without excessive controversy for a long time.

The answer is that it can't. You can not claim that the US was founded on the "ideal of all men being born equal" while the nation clearly believed that some men were less equal than others. So, point B fails. Whatever good ideals the DOI may have had, it is clear that they were not held by the founders and people of the early US.




Doesn't matter for the purpose of calculating Legitimacy. Legitimacy is popular belief. Popular belief is that the Declaration is the symbolic embodiment of egalitarian American ideals, and possessing it therefore lends a massive Legitimacy boost. Owning Washington's favorite dentures would not lend Legitimacy; owning the original copy of the Federalist Papers would not lend Legitimacy; owning Benjamin Franklin's personal diary would not lend Legitimacy. Owning the Declaration of Independence does.
This.... sounds odd tbh, considering the fact that we were theoretically able to turn our Revivalist state into a Communist Dictatorship. Obviously a Communist Dictatorship wouldn't care at all about being seen as "the legitimate successor" to bourgeois-capitalist America, Revivalist or not.
Indeed, and if you wanted to burn all that was left of America to the ground, you should not have selected a Revivalist setup. Should've gone for Communist Dictatorship if you want to do Communist Dictatorship-y things like burn cultural artifacts to make a transitory political statement.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter for the purpose of calculating Legitimacy. Legitimacy is popular belief. Popular belief is that the Declaration is the symbolic embodiment of egalitarian American ideals, and possessing it therefore lends a massive Legitimacy boost. Owning Washington's favorite dentures would not lend Legitimacy; owning the original copy of the Federalist Papers would not lend Legitimacy; owning Benjamin Franklin's person diary would not lend Legitimacy. Owning the Declaration of Independence does.
Yeah, the discussion got a bit sidetracked from the immediate context of the thread. Probably better to get it back on track.
 
@PoptartProdigy Can we have an option to attempt to track the documents route going back from when it arrived at its final destination to when it left DC. We might get lucky and find the other two documents.
 
Just want to point out that one particular Revivalist strain of thought that may be useful is playing into ideas of immigration and refugees. Perhaps thinking of them as foundational pieces of America that Victoria sought to destroy and we are Legitimate in bringing back. Especially considering the fact that it seems a shockingly sizable percentage of the Commonwealth's political leadership and our people have the idea that "Sperling was a incompetent blowhard, but he may have had some good ideas about refugees". Which no. Just no.

We can pick and choose several pieces of cultural continuities with the USA and that one, for both moral and practical reasons, is a good one to pair with Legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be real, I'm getting the feeling that the opposition to releasing the Declaration of Independence mostly comes from people who aren't Americans and/or strongly dislike the nation, neither of which makes any sense from an IC perspective. It's not going to cause Russia to declare war and it's not going to ruin California's plan, that's ridiculous. From an objective standpoint this is nothing but a boon.
There are downsides like russian attention, but you hit the nail on the head that many players are openly not looking at things from an IC perspective, instead judging things based on their current real life views that may or may not be applicable to the current situation. I would say that about 80% of the toxic arguments in this thread could have been avoided if we actually looked at things from an IC perspective.
 
This.... sounds odd tbh, considering the fact that we were theoretically able to turn our Revivalist state into a Communist Dictatorship. Obviously a Communist Dictatorship wouldn't care at all about being seen as "the legitimate successor" to bourgeois-capitalist America, Revivalist or not.
If we went maximum Communist Dictatorship we'd be at -11 Legitimacy at game start.

Less legitimate than Victoria.
I see.
 
There are downsides like russian attention, but you hit the nail on the head that many players are openly not looking at things from an IC perspective, instead judging things based on their current real life views that may or may not be applicable to the current situation. I would say that about 80% of the toxic arguments in this thread could have been avoided if we actually looked at things from an IC perspective.
The perspective of which character? The President? The government in general? The people of Chicago and the Commonwealth?
If we went maximum Communist Dictatorship we'd be at -11 Legitimacy at game start.

Less legitimate than Victoria.
False!
I wouldn't recommend trying to game this too hard; Legitimacy shifts constantly as other factions make decisions, and given the nature of the system, the value of a single point of the stuff won't stay stable. It's meant to quantify your polity's RP comparative to others', not serve as a super-crunchy stat. That said, at game start, FCNY leads the rankings with Legitimacy 9, and Victoria is the bottom finalist with Legitimacy -12.
A Communist Dictatorship would still be more Legitimate than Victoria!
 
@PoptartProdigy Can we have an option to attempt to track the documents route going back from when it arrived at its final destination to when it left DC. We might get lucky and find the other two documents.
Eh, it's a bit below the level of abstraction. I'll say that offices of your government do it in the background. If they turn up anything, you'll hear about it.
I am not hunting down, I am commenting as I encounter it. And if you didn't mean that, then you shouldn't have used that example.
Again, clarification a single page later, if you are reading so assiduously. I am tired of being deliberately misunderstood. If you want your next vote counted, stop it.
 
Again, clarification a single page later, if you are reading so assiduously. I am tired of being deliberately misunderstood. If you want your next vote counted, stop it.

I am not deliberately misunderstanding you. I woke up, read what was written in my sleep, and had the immediate visceral reaction of "hell the fuck no". I am glad that I was wrong, but I would thank you not to call me a liar in the future.
 
I am not deliberately misunderstanding you. I woke up, read what was written in my sleep, and had the immediate visceral reaction of "hell the fuck no". I am glad that I was wrong, but I would thank you not to call me a liar in the future.
If you're trying to get yourself banned from the quest, you're doing a good job. If you're aiming for literally anything else, this is a stupid way to handle the topic.
 
The question then is, how did we get to point
D) Slavery exists without excessive controversy for a long time.

We didn't.

Slavery was controversial from the founding of the country. Hence the Three-Fifths compromise -- the founding fathers decided that having more states in the Union was more important than freeing the slaves. The can was then kicked down the road for the next 75 years with multiple crises, laws, and judicial rulings on the issue until it boiled over into the US Civil War.

Slavery always violated the DoI, and that's been known since it was written.
 
If you wanted this sort of thing to be an option, you shouldn't have played Revivalists.

I mean, our starting options were FCNY, NCR, Revivalists, or Resistance. Resistance obviously wouldn't get the chance for this sort of thing, and FCNY is going the max- Legitimacy route so that obviously wouldn't fly. So I guess specifically and exactly NCR would've had the only real possibility for "yeah, fuck America"?
Slavery always violated the DoI, and that's been known since it was written.

...by slave-owners. Yeah, I'm not the most convinced.

Unless you mean "people have always known the Founders were hypocrites," in which case fair enough, I can believe that.
 
Alright, now I'm almost tempted to go with announcing it just after the peace talks conclude and are sealed in ink, just to see the look on his face.

Almost.
The issue seems to be that Victoria holds itself to be the true remnant of a pure America, cleansing the rot free. Blackwell discussing this with a rival power means he can get dethroned....

And frankly, that's just good news to me. Blackwell facing a support crisis, even as the CMC Inquisitors backstop any news of us having the DOI..... Victorians splitting between those who besmirch us for tainting the DOI or insisting on holy war to invade us now to get the relic back.....


Hee... This might be very fun!!.

Just want to point out that one particular Revivalist strain of thought that may be useful is playing into the ideas of immigration and refugees as foundational pieces of America that Victoria sought to destroy and we are Legitimate in bringing back. Especially considering the fact that it seems a shockingly sizable percentage of the Commonwealth's political leadership and our people have the idea that "Sperling was a incompetent blowhard, but he may have had some good ideas about refugees", which no. Just no.

We can pick and choose several pieces of cultural continuities with the USA and that one, for both moral and practical reasons, is a good one to pair with Legitimacy.
I say this again. Legitimacy is likely to increase migration to us and even draw scarce talent such as engineers, scientists and doctors to us . Which only make the refugee crisis even more concerning. Yet as the Chinese say, crisis is two words meaning opportunity in danger. We feeding and housing migrants gave us 1 AP from integrating migrants into our economy.



As for DOI, the main issue is when do we trip the wire from covert to overt opposition by Russia... Given that our outreach shows that Russia is trying to poison views of us, I say we tripped that wire politically already... Leaving the issue of what moves we make or how long before Alexander supports our opponent military and then the BIG question of Russian backed invasion....
 
I mean, our starting options were FCNY, NCR, Revivalists, or Resistance. Resistance obviously wouldn't get the chance for this sort of thing, and FCNY is going the max- Legitimacy route so that obviously wouldn't fly. So I guess specifically and exactly NCR would've had the only real possibility for "yeah, fuck America"?
Poptart specifically meant with that picking loosely American options rather than picking the general Revivalist Movement option. We could have played a Chicago that was a one-party communist state, only nominally democratic, that threw the text of the Constitution into the trash, which would have netted us a hefty -11 Legitimacy, only one more than Victoria. Alternatively, we could have played an entirely democratic, Constitution adopting, capitalist state and started with a +1 Legitimacy.
 
Hmm, @PoptartProdigy if we were to peacefully integrate New York into the Commonwealth somewhere in the future, what exactly happens to our Legitimacy? Do we gain all of NY's Legitimacy (assuming our own is still lower than theirs by then), since them peacefully joining us means they consider us to be America's rightful successor?
 
Doesn't our constitution specify our economy as social democrat as opposed to socialist?

Actually our constitution makes no specification regarding economic system - SocDem won the associated ideology vote (hence the current political situation) but we chose not to have any enforcement of that ideology in the constitution ("[CRUSH] None").
 
I am not deliberately misunderstanding you. I woke up, read what was written in my sleep, and had the immediate visceral reaction of "hell the fuck no". I am glad that I was wrong, but I would thank you not to call me a liar in the future.
Okay, but all you had to do was finish reading the thread, a thing you were presumably going to do anyway, before commenting and then you could be reassured and there wouldn't be an issue.
IIRC, it also specifies that the Constitution should be put up for review every 30 years. Alot can change in 30 years....
I look forward to our turn-60 reformation of the Commonwealth into Greater Galt's Gulch. :V
 
so to make sure I understand the legitimacy thing. High legitimacy means people see you as a successor to america. Which is in general positive but has negatives since it means people who don't want america back or have bad memories of it, get antsy. It also creates expectations that we will act a lot like the old USA, which can cause minor to moderate diplomatic friction if we don't. For example it would cause a minor diplomatic stumble that we are fairly socialist, but it won't be a major issue unless we do something like human rights abuses or burn the declaration of independence.

so as a rule of thumb, the worst that come of divergent but not overtly negative ways of doing things is a hit to Legitimacy, but if we break out the war crimes high Legitimacy can make the backlash worse because everyone was expecting better from us. Or am I off base?
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top