Should players be able to advance their interests by participating in smaller groups?

In addition to their states, players should be able to advance their interests by participating in smaller groups such as those that might overthrow the government outside the rule of law:

Login to vote in this poll.

I voted yes, due to the fact that this goes along the idea of multiple public spheres. It creates an environment for players to be able to create their own public space in which they can express their beliefs and ideas amongst other people who share similar thoughts. This also promotes group collaboration and teamwork which is prevalent in many MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft or Everquest 2. There are a lot more positive aspects of allowing the ability to form small groups to achieve something in the game such as creating a goal oriented gameplay which may carry on to real life situations. It also promotes the collaboration of different player styles such as a deep attention player versus a hyper tension player who play and engage games differently. This is established through specifying different jobs for different people based on their strengths (deep attention players can focus on an important objective while hyper attentive players can help organize the objectives).

What a good question. This will allow players the chance to recoup loss interests they had prior to the formation of the group. I know that formulating small interests groups will allow players to strategically get involved on the next goal we have in pursuing our own government, or for that matter interacting with the others. How will we have our foreign policy created? We definitely need a defense strategy; no country can survive without one. So it is essential to fragment people into interest groups to better our overall agenda for the world.

i think it is very important to allow for people to participate in small groups with others. to not allow this would have many undesirable effects. for example, it would not allow for smaller groups to form against the government which would not allow for people to effect change in the governmental structures. even if many individuals dissented against some aspect of the government, as individuals there is not much each could do. however, as a group they could probably achieve more. also, i think it is inevitable that individuals will want to form smaller groups. in the real world, individuals can and do have interactions with others and naturally form smaller groups. to not allow for this in the game would not accurately reflect the way people naturally interact. also, to not allow for individuals to form smaller groups seems like it would encourage a very individualistic and self-interested world. i dont think it would allow for as much cooperation, which is important in a society in which everyone lives and hopefully works together.

I agree with your point that not allowing people to form smaller groups would have dangerous effects. Not allowing smaller groups assumes that the government will be perfect, and let's face it, that's not necessarily going to be true. Overthrowing a pre-existing government is part of the natural cycle. For a government to not allow smaller groups makes it an oppressive tyranny with way too much power. Allowing smaller groups keeps the government in check.

I completely agree with Math. about the fact that interest groups will give people a way to express themselves. This is necessary to give people the feeling that they can have their own opinion and that this is accepted by the state.
By probihiting interest groups people will make them anyway, only than illegal. Now it is legitimate, it is also easier for the state to stay in contact with its citizens through these interestgroups and know what is going on in the mass of people they represent.
On the other hand, yes interest groups can be a vehicle for contestation. To complain about a specific decision or policy is much more efficient by interest groups than as individuals. Also, the knowledge that specific groups have the possibility to collect people in order to contest will cause the state to make more accurate decisions. They are being checked by interest groups on some topics, which will create a system of checks and balances.
However, I disagree with the possibility of an interest group to overthrow the government outside of the rule of law.
I hope these kinds of actions will be counterbalanced by other interestgroups. If not, and the interest group makes up the majority of the citizens than that is in fact allowed in a democracy.

So they can form cities and towns?

No seriously, it seems reasonable that people should be able to act in smaller interest groups. By allowing participants to involve themselves in smaller groups below the state, it would allow for interest groups of all kinds to form. Everything from quilting guilds and the girl/boy scouts to the ALF, street gangs, and the christian church would be allowed to function in this world. So obviously there will be more radial groups in existence, but there would also be a plethora of other smaller entities that would ultimately benefit society.

Can we all agree that having these smaller interest groups would be a good thing?

Again, it seems their existence is better than their banishment because it will offer people outlets for their own self expression, and without that, people will become atomized and apart of a boring, restricting, uniform whole.

i gotta say yes bc i feel saying no would be to eliminate the option of putting criticism to action, and im always a supporter of a healthy-dose of criticism/cynicism. plus, i feel we naturally congregate into smaller groups