[DRAFT] Paramilitary Panic

[Czechostan]

[title] Paramilitary Panic

[description] As a particularly bitter and polarized campaign season rolls through, extremist political parties have created armed, paramilitary wings. Although these groups claim to exist for security reasons, some citizens are accusing them of intimidation and political terrorism.

[validity] democratic nations with cultural/political diversity that allow for the private ownership of weapons

[option] “These dangerous thugs think they can LARP as some sort of liberation army,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, an incumbent MP who claims @@HIS@@ constituents have been harassed by paramilitaries. “But what they do is intimidate voters, violently break up rallies, and contribute to an atmosphere of fear. Ban political paramilitaries and jail their leaders. And give the police more funding to crack down on these terrorists.”
[effect]

[option] “Thugs? The Fuchsia-Shirts are not thugs: we’re the vanguard against thugs” asserts Adelaide Hilton of the National Bootlicker Party. “A lot of people disagree with our views here and threaten to shut our rallies down. We know the police department here is stretched thin, and we’re perfectly fine filling the holes. We can patrol our own rallies, those rambunctious minority neighborhoods, the voting booths, uhhh… Anyway, I highly recommend that the government stay out of our business. For the safety of you and everyone else.”
[effect]

[option] “You know, having armed supporters isn’t a bad idea,” says your former campaign manager @@RANDOMNAME@@. “If our party created a, uh… ‘volunteer patriot organization’ of our own, we could… ‘sway’ voters into choosing our party. But we would have to make sure only our party is allowed to do this. Maybe we could even promote this paramilitary into being your own private police force.”
[effect]

[option] “Face it, @@LEADER@@, democracy is a failure,” claims violet-shirted @@RANDOMNAME@@, a militant religious fundamentalist. “The best rulers for a country aren’t the people who can captivate the majority, but they who are cutthroat, cunning, and able to successfully use force. Replace political parties with paramilitaries, and let them duke it out in the street to determine who is the legitimate ruler of the country.”
[effect]

[Baggieland]

Due to the mention of Bigtopian neighbourjoods, it should have the allows immigration validity.

[Australian rePublic]

Adelaide Hilton, ha? Considering that Adelaide is a city in Australia, maybe this meeting should be located in a hotel or something. I mean, there's just something satisfying about Adelaide Hilton being in the Hilton hotel in Adelaide, SA. Wait, come to think of it, is there a Hilton in Adelaide? Focus, focus...

Any party able to afford this would have to be a major party. (First or second tier, maybe we can get down to third tier, but that's pushing it). Naming major parties is a player autonomy no-no

[Czechostan]

Due to the mention of Bigtopian neighbourjoods, it should have the allows immigration validity.

Hmm, I meant it to be a reference to neighborhoods with any minorities. So I suppose I'll add a "no ethincally/culturally homogeneous nations" qualification.

Adelaide Hilton, ha? Considering that Adelaide is a city in Australia, maybe this meeting should be located in a hotel or something. I mean, there's just something satisfying about Adelaide Hilton being in the Hilton hotel in Adelaide, SA. Wait, come to think of it, is there a Hilton in Adelaide? Focus, focus...

Any party able to afford this would have to be a major party. (First or second tier, maybe we can get down to third tier, but that's pushing it). Naming major parties is a player autonomy no-no

Haha, I'm sure there's a joke in there some place.

I don't think the party necessarily has to be a big party--it just has a lot of impassioned supported. I left the details about how many people were participating alone. It's really a general stand-in for militarized fringe parties. Regardless, parties, major parties, have been named in the past. Issue #120 comes to mind, with the "Liberal Conservatives" and the "Progressive Traditionalists."

[Baggieland]

So I suppose I'll add a "no ethincally/culturally homogeneous nations" qualification.

Sorry, that's not in the game. You could use 'indigenous' instead of Bigtopians. Indigenous populations have been mentioned in a few issues, portraying them as a minority and with few rights.